Private sale and gun show "loophole" background checks on the horizon?

[KG1]

How would all of the new restrictions have helped avert the current tragedies? It's my understanding these rifles were purchased from dealers and the shooters passed NICS. Nothing that's being talked about would have made a difference, the only people being impacted by it are the law abiding.

I've watched the failures of gun control legislation from 1968. The people driving this bus won't be satisfied until they get total disarmament of the general public and abolition of the second amendment. Then they will abolish the fourth amendment to make it easier to enforce the abolition of the second. It's fear that drives this, the fear of those in charge of losing power and control, even if it's only in their own minds.

The second paragraph will be escalated when the the anti-gun crowd discovers if proposals like a "strengthned" UBC legisilation were to be enacted that it won't make a damn bit of difference. They will want an even bigger piece of the 2nd amendment pie until they have consumed the entire thing.

That's what Trump does'nt seem to get.

 

[chipbennett]

The second paragraph will be escalated when the the anti-gun crowd discovers if proposals like a "strengthned" UBC legisilation were to be enacted and it won't make a damn bit of difference. They will want an even bigger piece of the 2nd amendment pie until they have consumed the entire thing.

That's what Trump does'nt seem to get.

My perspective is that background checks are unconstitutional, both inherently and particularly based on strict scrutiny. At the same time, if we're going to have them, even knowing that they will have zero impact on their stated purpose, they should at least return valid results based on good data. In the end, as you say, "strengthening" BGCs will prove to accomplish absolutely nothing. One could argue, then, at that point, that BGCs utterly fail a strict scrutiny review, and should be ruled unconstitutional.

UBCs are a complete non-starter. Since firearm sales, under existing Federal law, must be carried out within a given state, I don't see how the fed.gov would have any constitutional jurisdiction or authority to enact federal UBC legislation to begin with.

 

[4651feeder]

So under Obama we got zero new gun control. Under Trump, if he has his way, we are going to get a red flag law, universal background check and maybe something on other stuff but not sure. And you are making the case, we are doing better under Trump when it comes to guns than we did Obama?

Nope, never compared how we fared under Obama as opposed to Trump, that's all on you.

I will state the 2nd is currently holding it's footing as well as it can under this President when you compare the other present political options.

chipbennet in post #40 pretty well sums it up.

 

[Expat]

Wrong question. Are we doing better under Trump than we would have been under Hilary Clinton?

I held my nose and voted for McCain and again for Romney. Trump will get no support from me if he keeps attacking our rights, but I'll certainly vote for him over Biden, Faucahontas, Harris, or any of the other socialist Dem candidates.

If Hillary was in, it would be much easier for Mitch to continue to simply not bring any bills to the floor. Does anyone think he is suddenly wanting to put this crap through after the GOP held tight after Newtown? That was much worse than what is going on now. But the GOP didn't let a thing go through. But now you have Trump saying he has been calling Mitch to get him on board. You have Trump saying that his base is with him in supporting some common sense gun control. His base is demanding action. We have to do something.

 

[BugI02]

So under Obama we got zero new gun control. Under Trump, if he has his way, we are going to get a red flag law, universal background check and maybe something on other stuff but not sure. And you are making the case, we are doing better under Trump when it comes to guns than we did Obama?

But it is not what has changed under Trump but what has not changed. Why can't the same forces that kept Obama's gun restriction tendencies in check do the same now? If there really is little difference in the politicians in the House or Senate (other than being in the minority in the House) why such a disturbance. Could it be the realization that the kind of politicians we have (and Trump ran against) are really more interested in re-election than just about anything else? Would they fight less hard against infringement of the 2A because they see support of Trump as their path to 2 or 6 more years on the gravy train? Those that haven't written to their representatives should do so soon, and I would suggest targeting the ones dependent on Trump voters for a future. They should be told it is no sin to represent their constituency when Trump meanders off the path of righteousness like this and they should be under no delusions that the base does not want more knee-jerk, ill thought out restrictions on RKBA. I'm still of the opinion we need Trump in the WH over the possible alternatives, but we are less in need of any particular representative as long as the alternatives are more reliable on the important issues. We shouldn't have to be battling Trump on this issue, but battle him we must. The way to fight Trump is not to put a Democrat in the whitehouse again, it's to put far more representatives in both chambers who will represent their constituents before anything else

 

[WebSnyper]

That's what Trump does'nt seem to get.

Trump doesn't care about the 2A. He doesn't care, is different than he doesn't seem to "get it". It is something he has shown he is willing to bargain away, because it does not matter to him, except in how it will translate into votes.

I agree, he has been better for our rights overall then HRC would have been, and his impact on the Supreme Court has been a good thing, but to even for one moment think he "cares" like any of us do about the 2A is delusional.

 

[actaeon277]

How would all of the new restrictions have helped avert the current tragedies? It's my understanding these rifles were purchased from dealers and the shooters passed NICS. Nothing that's being talked about would have made a difference, the only people being impacted by it are the law abiding.

I've watched the failures of gun control legislation from 1968. The people driving this bus won't be satisfied until they get total disarmament of the general public and abolition of the second amendment. Then they will abolish the fourth amendment to make it easier to enforce the abolition of the second. It's fear that drives this, the fear of those in charge of losing power and control, even if it's only in their own minds.

I use this explanation all the time.

 

[KittySlayer]

So whatever gun control measures they pass should have an expiration/sunset. For instance after four(?) years the magazine limit expires. If it was in fact so wildly successful at eliminating these mass murders then Congress should have no problem extending the ban. If it had no impact on criminals then let it expire and return our freedoms.

Since Congress is so anxious to do “something” perhaps they can reaffirm that murder in the US is still illegal.

 

[CPT Nervous]

While a centralized list is not allowed. A digital copy of the paperwork is FULLY ALLOWED. this paired with OCR technology and scanning along with record searching software, is all legal and has created a paper system that is just about as fast and accurate as having a full on database of gun owners.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/heres-how-cops-actually-trace-a-gun-2016-8

They're allowed to digitized the documents for storage. The documents are converted into .jpeg images, and are not searchable. Would it be possible? Yes. It's possible, but illegal.

And we all know that the ATF follows the law...

 

[Dead Duck]

I almost yelled at my monitor.
Somebody tell Judge Jeanine to get with it or get the **** out.


https://video.foxnews.com/v/6071588034001/#sp=show-clips

 

[actaeon277]

I almost yelled at my monitor.
Somebody tell Judge Jeanine to get with it or get the **** out.


https://video.foxnews.com/v/6071588034001/#sp=show-clips

Background checks wouldn't have stopped this. So why is this coming up?
Good point.


Then she states this is an American thing.
No.
It's not.

 

[K_W]

If only the FFL has the record then how does the police trace a gun used in a crime back to the original purchaser? Or can't they?

Make, model, and serial number.

Call manufacturer, get dealer's name
Call dealer, get buyer's name from 4473
"Visit" buyer, sold it, get 2nd buyer's name
"Visit" 2nd buyer, gave it to felon nephew
"Visit" nephew, matches perp description
Buyer 1 cleared, Arrest Uncle and Nephew.

If the original buyer sold without a background check or at least BOS, the the trail would go cold. That is why Police support UBC, but politicians want it +registry for confiscation using the same method.

 

[Cameramonkey]

They're allowed to digitized the documents for storage. The documents are converted into .jpeg images, and are not searchable. Would it be possible? Yes. It's possible, but illegal.

And we all know that the ATF follows the law...

And we are one available computer program short of making them searchable. Its called OCR, or Optical Character Recognition. The tech is out there and works wonderfully. I know. My company uses it already to digitize paper work orders and invoices for long term storage instead of keeping pallets of paper boxes in the warehouse.

I'll bet lunch (but not dinner, thats too rich) that somebody has already clandestinely (is that actually a word?) started doing OCR on this database of pictures for their own needs.

 

[KG1]

I almost yelled at my monitor.
Somebody tell Judge Jeanine to get with it or get the **** out.


https://video.foxnews.com/v/6071588034001/#sp=show-clips

If it's something that Trump is in favor of then Judge Jeanine is automatically on board with it.

If you were to throw an apple at Trump's butt you would hit the Judge in the back of the head.

 

[BigRed]

I'm not at all confident in President Trump's position on second amendment issues. It seems every time a shooting happens he is willing to give away another concession. Setting a precedent that will steadily chip away at our rights.

I am confident in his position.

Donny can go straight to Hell.

 

[IcemanIND]

On the subject of tracing a gun involved in a crime, if they traced it to an INGO (or other related online forum) member who had sold it to someone that eventually used it in a crime and submitted feedback on itrader, the original classified listing, buyers username, ip, contact info, pictures of the gun possibly with serial number would all be available to authorities.

Does anyone know if this has ever been used in an investigation?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

What if Trump is the one that gets federal gun registration put in place through this "universal background check" nonsense

 

[churchmouse]

What if Trump is the one that gets federal gun registration put in place through this "universal background check" nonsense

Would not fare well for him.

 

[flatlander]

I had the FBI contact me about 18 years after I had purchased a Gen 1 Glock 17. My ex got it in the divorce in '99. They found it during an arrest in Ft. Wayne (I lived in Anderson prior to the divorce) involving drugs. I told them the story that it was the ex's. They never asked for any info on her, she's remarried twice that I know of, so wouldn't be able to help anyway. Point is they asked only if it belonged to me. Told them no and haven't heard a peep since.

Bob

 

[DoggyDaddy]

What if Trump is the one that gets federal gun registration put in place through this "universal background check" nonsense

UBCs won't work. Period, full stop. Releasing certain medical information (like psychiatric treatment/commitment/adjudicated bat**** crazy info) being added to the NICS database would "strengthen" background checks without resorting to a UBC. But as always, this would only impact the law-abiding, and not the criminals bent on doing harm.