Because the current system is working so well.....
What a joke..
More than 2,000 disputed gun buys allowed
What a joke..More than 2,000 disputed gun buys allowed
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
We need a universal background check.....
- Thread starter SEIndSAM
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
"Username"
Shooter
I will abide by natural law and the restrictions placed upon state in the Second Amendment.
Are you a registered dealer or sell at gun shows? If not, then a UBC wouldn't apply to you.
Why wouldn't it? UBC as implemented applies to firearm transfers, not commercial sales. 10 states have UBC that applies to private sales. Some, like Washington state, take "transfer" much more literally and require background checks for letting someone shoot your run at the range, loaning a hunting rifle to a friend, etc.
Lol. Who told you that?
You really don't know what UBC means, and what has been previously proposed and in some cases passed into law. That is obvious. Here's a hint, and try really hard to get this... the "U" stands for "UNIVERSAL".
And I have sold at gun shows, which is no different than selling across the street from the gun show, or in a WalMart parking lot, or in my living room.
Last edited:
UBC's are just another feel-good "solution" to the "problem" of "illegal guns" (yes, a little heavy on the quotes there). As with the existing array of firearms laws, they only work if people are willing to obey them.
Adding to the current slew of laws will do nothing. It is already illegal to transfer a firearm to a prohibited person under existing laws. I doubt that Hector Homeboy or Joe Mope the redneck is going to worry about yet one more crime he commits when informally providing a firearm to his criminal buddy.
Adding to the current slew of laws will do nothing. It is already illegal to transfer a firearm to a prohibited person under existing laws. I doubt that Hector Homeboy or Joe Mope the redneck is going to worry about yet one more crime he commits when informally providing a firearm to his criminal buddy.
The only real problem I see with the current system is that people who have been psychotic and under mental health care all their lives are protected by HIPPA and still pass a NICS background check. If a 50+ year old has been drawing disability for mental health issues and living with his mother for his entire adult life, there should be some flags raised somewhere.
I'm late to the party here, since work has sent me to the thriving metropolis of Des Moines, Iowa, but Indiana is one of the states where mental health orders are reported to NICS. However, they have to be the qualifying mental health orders, so a regular commitment (either up to 90 days, or indefinite) counts, but not the short-term commitment for assessment (e.g. emergency detention). The NICS Improvements Amendment Acts were "adopted" by Indiana, making us one of the reporting states. This was as a response to the Virginia Tech shooter, who should have been a prohibited person, but his involuntary commitment was not reported to NICS.
