NEWS: the 'Universal Background Check' language made public....

[NyleRN]

Having to pay a fee to a third party in order to sell or purchase a firearm in exercise of your SCOTUS-upheld individual constitutional RIGHT to bear arms is tantamount to a poll tax.

Which is perfectly legal thanks to the precedent of that pesky 1934 NFA law

 

[HoughMade]

...Having to pay a fee to a third party in order to sell or purchase a firearm in exercise of your SCOTUS-upheld individual constitutional RIGHT to bear arms is tantamount to a poll tax.

Only if you're "voting from the rooftops".

 

[DRob]

Ouch! My knees just hit the bottom of my computer desk.

 

[bwframe]

Why in the world would we fall for the idea that this will be the final draft?

How many other things could this really be? Trial balloon, poison pill...?

 

[jbombelli]

I can neither confirm nor deny that I will completely ignore "universal background checks."

 

[KellyinAvon]

Why in the world would we fall for the idea that this will be the final draft?

How many other things could this really be? Trial balloon, poison pill...?

It's one page in bullet background format. My money is on somebody removed the "DRAFT--NOT FOR RELEASE" and leaked it. There's probably a crap-ton of these things being reviewed by lawyers and assorted political operatives.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

With regards to the definition of terms--we don't have to look too far back to see that an established definition is one edict away from being changed for political purposes.

 

[AJMD429]

Our gun lobby needs to be working on this. Are they?

We ARE "the gun lobby" - the larger gun makers don't typically 'lobby' for the Second Amendment (case in point Colt's recent decision to stop selling 'AR-15' rifles to civilians).

Too bad there aren't 80 million gun owners in the U.S. who could write and call and fax their legislators every single day to DEMAND that they cease and desist 'infringing' on the Second Amendment....

Unfortunately in my experience, less than 1% of 'gun owners' ever get off their butts and do ANYTHING beyond paying their NRA lifetime dues back in 1971....

What I usually hear is....

• "I have written all my legislators...." (yet when I ask who they wrote, they don't even know who their legislators ARE...)
• "I already wrote Rep X and Senator Y..." (well.....write them AGAIN....every week....)
• "It doesn't make any difference..." (YES it does, with most of them, and even if it doesn't, irritate the snot out of them anyway...)
• "I don't have the time...." (it takes about ten minutes to write all your legislators AND the president - use GOA's tool or the ones here)
• "I don't have the money to donate to the NRA/GOA/ILA/SAF etc..." (well then sell one of your guns...)

"Gun Owners" are NOT paragons of virtue in the 'political participation' department....some of it is our inherent personalities, which are usually the "rugged individualist" type. TOO BAD....quit your romantic fantasies about an apocalyptic showdown between good and evil, and just DO YOUR JOB as a U.S. citizen....

 

[Expat]

I can neither confirm nor deny that I will completely ignore "universal background checks."

This is why we need common sense universal registration. Otherwise how will we be able to enforce common sense UBC.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

This is why we need common sense universal registration. Otherwise how will we be able to enforce common sense UBC.

Reasonable and common sense. What could possibly go wrong when you use those two things?

 

[KellyinAvon]

Reasonable and common sense. What could possibly go wrong when you use those two things?

Words that do well in focus groups, yet mean nothing...

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Words that do well in focus groups, yet mean nothing...

Heh... yeah, they mean something alright. They are euphemisms for you-gun-owners-need-to-compromise.

 

[AJMD429]

I wrote the legislators and president, AGAIN.....

----------------------

You do know, I hope, that Joe Minchin's 'universal background check' proposal has two problems still:


1) as with all these 'background checks' - it will NOT significantly impact violent crime, particularly the highly-motivated and pre-planning "mass shooter" type psychopaths. Thus it is merely 'political cover' that will waste tax dollars and misdirect law enforcement resources.


2) it doesn't have enough safeguards to prevent government accumulation of 'registration information' - there needs to be a SEVERE (i.e. life in prison) penalty for anyone knowingly accumulating registry information not pertaining to a specific crime, and without a specific judicial warrant.





---------------

We'll see if that helps any...

 

[Ark]

It sounds to me that this is basically an attempt to regulate a small amount of business that is conducted at gun shows, particularly by non-FFL holding individuals who rent booth space to sell from their personal collections. Those persons, if actually "engaged in the business," are already breaking exitisting federal law.

Probably an unpopular opinion, but I think this actually does describe a real phenomenon. It's not a lot of people, but there are definitely dudes who treat the show circuit like a side business. As always, the devil is in trying to parse out the exact definitions of words and criteria for meeting those definitions. Is the dude buying rifle after rifle from the CMP and putting them on the table for $1,400 running a for-profit business? The guy selling $500 SKSs that he bought for $200 a crate in the 90s?

 

[Raskolnikov]

Probably an unpopular opinion, but I think this actually does describe a real phenomenon. It's not a lot of people, but there are definitely dudes who treat the show circuit like a side business. As always, the devil is in trying to parse out the exact definitions of words and criteria for meeting those definitions. Is the dude buying rifle after rifle from the CMP and putting them on the table for $1,400 running a for-profit business? The guy selling $500 SKSs that he bought for $200 a crate in the 90s?

I couldn’t agree more. The issue is this: that person is already breaking the law. It would take some smart accounting work to prove it, but the BATFE has plenty of those. I’m personally of the persuasion that one shouldn’t have to have a license to sell, possess, or carry firearms. Be that as it may, we should enforce existing laws first before making new ones.

I heard some further commentary on federal firearms laws, and the language of this proposed legislation is confusing, particularly with the word “commercial.” I take “commercial” to mean business. The business of firearms sales requires an FFL. They are proposing a requirement for background checks for any firearm that is advertised for “commercial sale.” By that, I’m guessing that they are applying this to any advertised private sale, including anything advertised on the INGO classifieds. It’s going to be a brave new world, I’m afraid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wingrider1800]

How about this. The new "real drivers license " form of ID could be used to identify if a person isn't legal to purchase or own a gun. Full background checks could be done to everyone issued this ID and if the person has anything showing up on the background check that says he or she can't own a gun, mark the license with a red dot or something. No other background check necessary and no record keeping. If I buy a gun from you, a quick check of my DL would be easy enough. This same DL could be used for votiing.

 

[hookedonjeep]

Definately won't make a difference on crime, and for the bulk of us on here not busy commititing a bunch of crimes, it really won't make a difference; as we are not in the "business" of selling guns. Besides, trades don't count as sales!

 

[fullmetaljesus]

How about this. The new "real drivers license " form of ID could be used to identify if a person isn't legal to purchase or own a gun. Full background checks could be done to everyone issued this ID and if the person has anything showing up on the background check that says he or she can't own a gun, mark the license with a red dot or something. No other background check necessary and no record keeping. If I buy a gun from you, a quick check of my DL would be easy enough. This same DL could be used for votiing.

Good thing it's impossible to make fake ID's.

Criminals by definition don't follow the law.
Laws never prevent crimes they meerly give our Masters a method to punish you for stepping out of line.

What I'd like to see is the original meaning of outlaw come back. I saw if a person breaks enough laws or commits violent felonies they should get branded an outlaw. Their face posted on the nightly news informing everyone.

So of those outlaws start causing more trouble and a law abiding citizen takes them down everyone moves on business as usual.