In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Back ground checks
Waco Waltz
Member Posts: 10,828 ✭✭
Is back ground checks liberal speak for universal registration?
Comments
That's one of the concerns, that records would not be destroyed.
No, they are not registration. Not so long as records are quickly destroyed.
That's one of the concerns, that records would not be destroyed.
Aw c'mon man, do you think they are going to destroy these records?
The idea of eliminating private firearm sales will do nothing, it will only enable the states and feds to collect more tax money or create a new tax on top of it all.
Criminals that commit crimes with firearms should face dire consequences. Kill another person with a gun, face the death penalty. Use a gun to commit any crime and face life in prison.
I know that will never happen, but it is the only reality that might deter criminal use of firearms.
Crazy people are another thing all together. They do not care about potential consequences, so the death penalty will not be much of a deterent.
Instead of spending money on banning firearms and creating new laws, enforce the current laws, enact a nationwide death penalty and start spending money on medical research to identify, help and cure people with mental health diesease rather than either locking them up or ignoring them.
quote:Originally posted by ChrisInTempe
No, they are not registration. Not so long as records are quickly destroyed.
That's one of the concerns, that records would not be destroyed.
Aw c'mon man, do you think they are going to destroy these records?
So far they have been. But there have been two times I can recall when attempts by the ATF to quietly build a database of gun owners was discovered. Both times it took court action to force them to destroy it.
My concern focuses mostly on the arrogance of the ATF where background check records are concerned. There is a history of that agency making up rules as it goes. Including rules they know to be illegal.
Is back ground checks liberal speak for universal registration?
I think when they're advocating "universal background checks," they want to eliminate sales between private parties. They don't like not knowing where the guns are.
Requiring an FFL/background check for all firearm transfers is a de facto registration in that when an FFL goes out of business, he must turn over his business records to the ATF within 30 days. With improvements in scanning technology and data storage, it would be feasible for the ATF to have created an electronic database of such records.
Moreover, the ATF can inspect an FFL's records at any time. I would not be surprised if new regulations required FFLs to keep their records online, so that the ATF can inspect those records remotely. This would be an effective registration -- one that could potentially be done by executive order or administrative action. (Recent precedent has been pretty liberal in allowing executive agencies to exercise legislative powers.)
Once this is in place, any firearm will theoretically be able to be tracked back to its documented owner. If in possession of a firearm, and not the documented owner, both the one in possession and the documented owner will be subject to prosecution, because either the firearm was stolen or is was sold absent the intervention of a recording FFL.
It is not technically registration, as it does not immediately create a listing of each and every firearm any individual owns. What it does, however, is create at listing of who owns each and every individual firearm.
It does nothing for safety, the prevention of violence, etc. It only creates another avenue of criminal prosecutioin.
Brad Steele
Is back ground checks liberal speak for universal registration?
Waco the only way a private sales background check system to work is for a universal national registration. We will have to register our hunting rifles to prove that we didn't just buy them without a BG Check. Anyone who doesn't register will be felons. I met a gun shop owner from western Canada a couple weeks ago, he told me that in his area there were a lot of guns that were never registered. Gun owners registered new guns they bought but not all of there older ones. Registration will not work if we don't comply.
I say DO NOT comply, I won't.
Not true really. I'm extremely pro gun but this could help stop the flow of guns to the bad guys. Trace it back , prosecute and keep prosecuting. You have to ask yourself how the criminals get guns. Studies show vast majority are obtained illegally via straw purchases or sales to prohibited persons. Isn't there a reasonable way to stem the flow to criminals without infringing on the good guys? I guess it depends if you think there is a chance of registration leading to confiscation. I think not. Sure Feinstein Shummer, Boxer all would love it but they will never have the chance. We have to do something to bring the majority of the public to our side so "We the People" win the battle
I guess it depends if you think there is a chance of registration leading to confiscation. I think not.
Why do you "think not"?
quote:It does nothing for safety, the prevention of violence, etc. It only creates another avenue of criminal prosecution.
Not true really. I'm extremely pro gun but this could help stop the flow of guns to the bad guys. Trace it back , prosecute and keep prosecuting. You have to ask yourself how the criminals get guns. Studies show vast majority are obtained illegally via straw purchases or sales to prohibited persons. Isn't there a reasonable way to stem the flow to criminals without infringing on the good guys? I guess it depends if you think there is a chance of registration leading to confiscation. I think not. Sure Feinstein Shummer, Boxer all would love it but they will never have the chance. We have to do something to bring the majority of the public to our side so "We the People" win the battle
The current wave of Gun Laws has been triggered by events that were perpetrated by folks with no criminal record and no record of forced mental health treatment. Background Checks would factually have done nothing to prevent these events.
If you are referencing the urban wars going on where those who are not legally able to have weapons, well, one would assume they would respect the new laws as much as they do those that currently exist.
Brad Steele
There are too many Senators & Congressman on our side.
How bout four years from now? How about two years from now?
Reminds me what I heard General Powellsaid recently; he was speaking about the second amendment, and actually said the purpose of the amendment was to prevent tyranny. THe interviewers jaws dropped, very concerned because Powell is a gun grabber, as was everyone else on the panel. They were relieved when Powell said "but that isn't going to happen." I was relieved also. Hearing General Powell say we do not have to worry about tyranny mande me feel a lot better.
And now you say we do not have to worry about confiscation? Thats great! Between your pronouncement, and Colin Powells, I now support registation and gun bans!
True but all guns begin legally. Follow the path back to the first illegal transaction and properly punish the offender.T would have to have positive results. Are we willing as a society to imprison more crooks? I don't know, Cost prohibitive maybe. Here in CT and CA from what I read violent offenders are getting significant early release.
So how do you reduce gun crime against law abiding citizens? Notice I said law abiding. I could not care less if thugs keep killing thugs. Unfortunately the thugs are the "children" the left like to include in their numbers relating to gun deaths
quote:If you are referencing the urban wars going on where those who are not legally able to have weapons, well, one would assume they would respect the new laws as much as they do those that currently exist.
True but all guns begin legally. Follow the path back to the first illegal transaction and properly punish the offender.T would have to have positive results. Are we willing as a society to imprison more crooks? I don't know, Cost prohibitive maybe. Here in CT and CA from what I read violent offenders are getting significant early release.
So how do you reduce gun crime against law abiding citizens? Notice I said law abiding. I could not care less if thugs keep killing thugs. Unfortunately the thugs are the "children" the left like to include in their numbers relating to gun deaths
So why didn't you just agree with me in the first place?
It is not about reducing violence; it is about traceability of ownership.
You suggest positive results, but I fail to see any of significance.
A gun is used in a crime. The gun is traced back to the first 'illegal' transfer, so two people get to go to jail instead of just the one who committed the crime.
Absent the law against the transfer, the crime would have still been committed, and the one who committed the crime would still be prosecutable. What is necessarily positive about creating a crime where one never existed before?
By this I am pointing out the following:
Currently, knowingly selling to a convicted felon is a crime, and knowingly selling to a straw purchaser is a crime.
Your new universal back-ground checks would only effect sales from an owner who unknowingly sells to a convicted felon, or unknowingly sells to a straw buyer. I would suggest that this currently is an insignificantly small number of transactions, and will again state that universal background checks will have little to no bearing on these folks getting firearms, and thus have little or nothing to do with safety or preventing violence.
Brad Steele
you can't reduce crime if you can't prove the crime. Prove the crime =reduced violent crime.
What is your proposal to reduce gun violence on law abiding citizens/ Notice I said law abiding. I could not care less if thugs kill thugs.
Criticize all you want but until you come to the table with a viable proposal to reduce gun crime against law abiding people, you voice will be ignored. Step up with an improvement plan
quote:Currently, knowingly selling to a convicted felon is a crime, and knowingly selling to a straw purchaser is a crime.
you can't reduce crime if you can't prove the crime. Prove the crime =reduced violent crime.
What is your proposal to reduce gun violence on law abiding citizens/ Notice I said law abiding. I could not care less if thugs kill thugs.
Criticize all you want but until you come to the table with a viable proposal to reduce gun crime against law abiding people, you voice will be ignored. Step up with an improvement plan
The best way to prevent innocent deaths in America today would be to mandate that every car be equipped with an blow to start alcohol lock.
Second would probably be mandated life alert service in the bathrooms of everyone over 60 years of age.
Do you want to solve a problem or just look for ways to disenfranchise freedom seeking gun owners?
Edit:
The point is, obviously, that universal background checks will make some feel like they've done something, but statistics will show you that it will have virtually no effect.
Brad Steele
I'd support that in a minute
The bathroom mandate no There you only risk hurting yourself. Your choice
quote:
statistics will show you that it will have virtually no effect.
That's BS show me one supporting stat.
quote:The best way to prevent innocent deaths in America today would be to mandate that every car be equipped with an blow to start alcohol lock.
I'd support that in a minute
The bathroom mandate no There you only risk hurting yourself. Your choice
quote:
statistics will show you that it will have virtually no effect.
That's BS show me one supporting stat.
Show me where anyone who was denied by the nics check was even charged, let alone convicted of a crime.
There are some but not a lot so I basically agree but read my premise, I'd support if they are willing to properly punish the offenders
my quote quote:Follow the path back to the first illegal transaction and properly punish the offender.T would have to have positive results. Are we willing as a society to imprison more crooks? I don't know, Cost prohibitive maybe. Here in CT and CA from what I read violent offenders are getting significant early release.
But still not one proposal for a way to reduce gun crime agaist law abiding citizens
quote:Show me where anyone who was denied by the nics check was even charged, let alone convicted of a crime.
There are some but not a lot so I basically agree but read my premise, I'd support if they are willing to properly punish the offenders
my quote quote:Follow the path back to the first illegal transaction and properly punish the offender.T would have to have positive results. Are we willing as a society to imprison more crooks? I don't know, Cost prohibitive maybe. Here in CT and CA from what I read violent offenders are getting significant early release.
But still not one proposal for a way to reduce gun crime agaist law abiding citizens
Ok, you 'basically agree' that you have a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
I basically agree as well.
Very glad we've had this rivetting conversation.
Brad Steele
Damn that was a huge leap. The problem that exists that the majority of Americans want fixed is to reduce gun crime on law abiding citizen. The left and the MSM want you to believe it's about children and they both want no guns eventually but the majority of Americans just want to be safer in the homes & neighborhoods. If we keep the majority on our side we win, if we don't we lose.
The Courts will not save us as nowhere in the 2nd or any of the support writing is registration prohibited in fact it could be specifically approved via the "well regulated" clause.
Remember that the age of the Supreme court and from whom the next Judges will likely come. 5-4 is in jeopardy. The 1994 AWB was never successfully challenged maybe not even challenged at at. Perhaps because of the sunset provision, our lawyers on our side figured it wasn't worth it but more likely they felt they would lose.
The fringe right , and I'm not berating that in any way, is a losing position. I wish it wasn't. I don't want any increased restrictions. However I see things as they are not as I want them to be. (Before you all go nuts that is NOT a Kennedy reference he stole it) for me it's more of the Jack Welch business philosophy when GE was not crazy left. If you want to win the war you have to conquer the middle. You can stay on the fringe and resist forever but you never win
quote:'basically agree' that you have a solution to a problem that doesn't exist
Damn that was a huge leap. The problem that exists that the majority of Americans want fixed is to reduce gun crime on law abiding citizen. The left and the MSM want you to believe it's about children and they both want no guns eventually but the majority of Americans just want to be safer in the homes & neighborhoods. If we keep the majority on our side we win, if we don't we lose.
The Courts will not save us as nowhere in the 2nd or any of the support writing is registration prohibited in fact it could be specifically approved via the "well regulated" clause.
Remember that the age of the Supreme court and from whom the next Judges will likely come. 5-4 is in jeopardy. The 1994 AWB was never successfully challenged maybe not even challenged at at. Perhaps because of the sunset provision, our lawyers on our side figured it wasn't worth it but more likely they felt they would lose.
The fringe right , and I'm not berating that in any way, is a losing position. I wish it wasn't. I don't want any increased restrictions. However I see things as they are not as I want them to be. (Before you all go nuts that is NOT a Kennedy reference he stole it) for me it's more of the Jack Welch business philosophy when GE was not crazy left. If you want to win the war you have to conquer the middle. You can stay on the fringe and resist forever but you never win
If you were have to have read Heller, you would have seen that the prefatory clause was specifically addresses as having no bearing upon the operative clause of the 2nd Amendment. To employ the 'well regulated' notion would be in effect a direct overturning of Heller. Possible to be sure, but unnecessary. Heller also confirms the wides powers of Government to 'Licences, Register, and Regulate'. There is little need to concern ourselves with a new court, as the power (as I read it) to totally remove (regulate) AR-15s from the street was already codified in that seminal victory for Gun Rights.
Conquering the middle for any positive result can, IMO, only be done by focusing upon the recognition that freedom is not without cost. As pointed out previously, we accept an order of magnitude more killing of 'innocents' through drunk driving accidents than innocents that are killed by firearms. Society has deemed this an acceptable cost for the freedom of society at large to not be encumbered with the cost and inconvenience of the implementation of technology that currently exists.
Conquering the middle cannot be achieved through implementation of panaceas that do not fix the situation in any real way. If freedom and liberty are to survive, the middle has to be brought to the understanding that the freedom of anonymous and unregulated firearms ownership is demonstrably less dangerous than hazards we already accept.
Drunk driving deaths can only be completely stopped by preventing every American from owning a car. The middle knows this and accepts that the results are not worth the solution. You, however, appear to be an interesting member of that middle, in that you actually seem to advocate for the imposition of cost and inconvenience upon the vast majority for the action of a very few.
Firearms deaths can be only be completely stopped by preventing every American from owning a firearm. Most understand this, and it is our task, IMO, to broadcast this reality and to demonstrate how the benefits of this solution are not worth the cost to our freedoms and liberties. Perhaps I will never convince you, but there are members of that middle who will see the inherent value of these freedoms.
Preemptive surrender is seldom a winning position.[:)]
Brad Steele
quote:Firearms deaths can be only be completely stopped by preventing every American from owning a firearm
Agree but that was and never has been my position Again I advocate methods to reduce gun crime on law abiding citizen.
Soooooo....the state complied with the letter of the law but records/registration was stored.
If you have a legal action that may prevent you from possessing a firearm in calif. the government looks up your firearms history and will send someone to your last known address to pick them up til your legal matter is resolved.
The ignorant can learn, the schills will see their day when light is shone on them.
quote:'basically agree' that you have a solution to a problem that doesn't exist
Damn that was a huge leap. The problem that exists that the majority of Americans want fixed is to reduce gun crime on law abiding citizen. The left and the MSM want you to believe it's about children and they both want no guns eventually but the majority of Americans just want to be safer in the homes & neighborhoods. If we keep the majority on our side we win, if we don't we lose.
The Courts will not save us as nowhere in the 2nd or any of the support writing is registration prohibited in fact it could be specifically approved via the "well regulated" clause.
Remember that the age of the Supreme court and from whom the next Judges will likely come. 5-4 is in jeopardy. The 1994 AWB was never successfully challenged maybe not even challenged at at. Perhaps because of the sunset provision, our lawyers on our side figured it wasn't worth it but more likely they felt they would lose.
The fringe right , and I'm not berating that in any way, is a losing position. I wish it wasn't. I don't want any increased restrictions. However I see things as they are not as I want them to be. (Before you all go nuts that is NOT a Kennedy reference he stole it) for me it's more of the Jack Welch business philosophy when GE was not crazy left. If you want to win the war you have to conquer the middle. You can stay on the fringe and resist forever but you never win
Where is the middle ground? I believe recent polls (I hate using poles not knowing the questions or sampling) show most Americans support the 2 amendment and want existing laws enforced.
As for giving the government the ability to track the weapon back to the unlawful transaction and prosecute might have unintended consequences. What about stolen weapons that could be the new growth industry. They could bring a premium price. I hate bringing this up knowing criminals would never have thought of this on there own.
If you're not on the list, you MUST be approved!
The list would be comprised of current felons and parolees. It only follows that everyone else must be good to go.
Make it available on the web like a "No Fly List" where everyone can check it anonymously. All the D.O.J. needs to do is update the list as people are added or removed.
COB
Regarding the auto breath analyzer. The fringe didn't want air bags either yet the majority do and gladly pay for them. Perhaps I spoke too soon as cost could become a factor. Let me revise my opinion that I would like to see them on any car in which the driver was convicted of DUI. The fault of your logic IMO is that the middle accepts the risk of a drunk driver because acholol consumption is a common experience for them. They mostly all have an occasional drink and are comfortable with it. On the other hand most of the middle does not own and have never handled a firearm and are extremely uncomfortable with them.
quote:Firearms deaths can be only be completely stopped by preventing every American from owning a firearm
Agree but that was and never has been my position Again I advocate methods to reduce gun crime on law abiding citizen.
OK, progress.
1. Breathalyzer. You want them on all cars for people convicted of a DUI. This is a targeted solution that targeted only those that have been convicted of wrong doing. Those that are not targeted can get in any car and start that car without restraint. It is being implemented in various forms throughout the country today, and, because emphasis is needed here, only restricts the cars of those who have proven themselves irresponsible. Any person (those convicted of DUI included) can get into any car without a breathalyser falling down drunk and start that car.
Every car has a paper trail. Everyone convicted of drunk driving has a paper trail, yet the drunk driver can get in his buddy's car and go and create mayhem any time he wants.
In short, the system works when those ensnared within it choose to follow the law. When they do not, the system crashes. It more-than-likely prevents the deaths of some innocents, but only by those who have had a awakening and are inclined to attempt to re-enter society.
Those that indiscriminately shoot innocent people are not so inclined.
2. (Aside) I can't locate it at the moment, but a study released some 20 years after the introduction of airbag revealed that there was a very real possibility that they killed more children than they saved. Airbags were/are designed to save the lives of unbuckled average-sized adults. When blasted into the face of a buckled-in child, they wreaked havoc. Overall they have saved lives, it is true, but the lives they have saved are those of the irresponsible unbuckled driver and the lives that were lost were of those innocent children whose parents were being as responsible as possible.
Unintended consequences must always be considered.
3. (Back to topic) You advocate to reduce gun violence against the law abiding, but have previously stated that you do not advocate eliminating it. We need then, to know what level of reduction you advocate. Do you want to cut it by 10% to satisfy the middle? Do you want to cut it by 50%? Or, perhaps, do you want to cut it down to 121 innocent deaths per year? In short, you have recognized that there will be innocent deaths, and that you accept some as a necessary evil so as to preserve on some level the freedoms of the majority. It is a numbers game, apparently, one I will not pretend to understand or one in which I will engage.
Do you wish, then, to prevent the evil that was perpetrated upon those innocent lives at Columbine, VA Tech, Aurora CO, and Sandy Hook? It has already been established that universal background checks would have changed nothing in these four events, as all weapons were purchased using the background checks in place at the time, and none of the purchasers would have been disabled even with the implementation of the background check you advocate. How then does the implementation of universal background checks move us towards your goal of reduction of gun violence against the law-abiding?
The paper trail for all weapons used in these events was found and reported. Those that perpetrated the evil are either dead, were prosecuted, or will be prosecuted. This is exactly the result of your proposed intrusions into the lives of those innocents who simply wish to retain the right of anonymous firearms ownership.
Again; a solution without a problem, and an intrusion upon those that have never and will never be irresponsible with a firearm. It is simply a panacea to win the emotions of the ignorant, and by playing into it we not only give it credence, we will allow it to happen.
Brad Steele
Would all the illegal immigrants oops I mean undocumented workers be included in this list?
Well it really makes you wonder doesn't it? If they are "undocumented" then how would you document them? But if they are getting food stamps or other services, then they ought to be documented and thus no longer "undocumented".
Of course, if you're illegal, then what are you doing in this country is what I've thought for many years.
Good question.
COB
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Brad Steele
back to the real topic.I won't bite on the numbers /reduction.
The massacres drove the current discussion. I agree they would likely not been prevented. That has never really been my focus as I agree you can't stop whackos.
The simpler question is this
Do you believe criminals have to many guns and have far too easy access? If you don't we will never agree. If you do how do you change that?
Over time being able to trace back a gun and prosecute wuould have to have a positive effect.IMO
airbags and breathalizers: no system is perfect Less harm is always better. Kids killed mostly in front seat when warned against that. I know for sure the airbag saved my life.
back to the real topic.I won't bite on the numbers /reduction.
The massacres drove the current discussion. I agree they would likely not been prevented. That has never really been my focus as I agree you can't stop whackos.
The simpler question is this
Do you believe criminals have to many guns and have far too easy access? If you don't we will never agree. If you do how do you change that?
Over time being able to trace back a gun and prosecute wuould have to have a positive effect.IMO
I am unsure that I can buy into the concept that released convicts have too many guns. Obviously they do because of the current laws we have in place, but I question those laws every bit as much as I question whether ex-criminals have too many firearms.
Any man who commits a crime with a firearm has at least one too many firearms. Obvious of course, but a necessary statement. We release 10s of thousands of people each day back into society and hope that they re-integrate and become one of us. As a society, however, we brand these people for life and withhold from them the basic human right of self-defense and, in most cases, the basic human right of self-determination via the ballot box. If you have ever worked with or around this population, you will realize that in most cases they are sent to the most vile and violent neighborhoods, and withholding that basic right of self-defense is, IMO, cruel and unusual punishment.
I also cannot buy into your wishful 'Over time being able to trace back a gun and prosecute would have to have a positive effect.'. I guess there is a possibility of something if there is a crime committed and a firearm is left at the scene. That firearm could be traced back to the last documented owner and the search for the criminal could begin from there.
That system is in place today. The only difference today is that in some states there could possibly be one or more legal and undocumented transfers between the last documented owner and the perpetrator of the crime. This is not the case in Chicago, East LA, Washington D.C., and Harlem, yet the problem is arguably worse in these places than in places where there is no universal background check. I simply cannot square the solution to the problem, even if I were to accept that criminals have too many firearms.
Brad Steele
It seems we have some sort of agreement. My premise demands enforcement and punishment of violators.I'm not sure the good guys are willing to pay that price. BTW the reason it doesn't work in the areas you mentioned is that the vast majority of their guns come from places that have no traceability requirement.
But all are traceable to the manufacturer and at least the first sale since at least 1984.
The primary reason they come in from elsewhere is that they are, at least in DC, Chicago, and for the part in New York, banned. The traceability program exists also throughout Illinois, and yet a large number of the weapons use in Chicago come in from the suburbs where traceability exists. Obviously it has not had the positive effect you wish for at least in the Land of Lincoln, yet you remain hopeful that it will have the opposit effect if employed on a large scale.
Brad Steele
The primary reason they come in from elsewhere is that they are, at least in DC, Chicago, and for the part in New York. The traceability program is in place also throught Illinois, and yet a large number the weapons use in Chicago come in from the suburbs where traceability exists
You statement is a little unclear I think you may need to re-read it and edit. If they truly come in from the suburbs where traceability exist it should be very easy to prosecute the first illegal transaction. Why aren't they?