I told the NRA today I agree with background checks

[cmort666]

On the phone with them today to confirm my membership and I mentioned to the nice lady on the phone that I agreed with background checks.

What you told them was that you agreed with universal registration and a ban on private sales.

I suspect that a universal background check will be passed with overwhelming support.

You suspect wrong.

People who know the other side (and who aren't a part of it) won't fall for that bit of deceit.

What other things do you support? Magazine bans? AWB? Bans on concealed carry?

 

[cmort666]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

You're entitled to your opinion.

You're NOT entitled to force it upon me at gunpoint.

 

[cmort666]

I agree. I'm for it. I also don't see why it's not universally supported. We want to keep guns out of the hands of wackos. What other way is there. (That is not rhetorical, I am really asking the question)

And when the time comes for confiscation, that non-registration registration will really come in handy...

 

[Moonman]

cmort666,

A Black Apache has been flying around this area lately,

THEY LOOKIN' FOR YOU!

 

[cmort666]

So in light of that the check ain't that big of a deal if you got nothing to hide.

...until some cop confiscates your pistol during a traffic stop because it was purchased when you lived out of state or because they screwed up their own illegal registry. But hey, it's no big deal to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to get back your own lawfully owned property, right?

And if you have nothing to hide, you wouldn't mind random warrantless searches of your automobile, home and person, RIGHT?

 

[JcMack]

As mentioned implementing a system that would include all gun sales both retail and private would be a monumental and costly project. It would be designed to fail and probably required before the whole mess was actually in place, causing no end of grief to gun owners and prospective gun owners. If it ever was in place whats to keep them from monitoring your sales or purchases and possibly putting limits on the number of transactions within a year.

 

[Biginge]

I don't readily put a lot of credence in the opinion of those debating current issues that are not members of the NRA. Ya gotta buy a ticket to sing with the group.

 

[cmort666]

This measure seems reasonable,

...if you know ABSOLUTELY nothing about the other side and its motivations and tactics.

At BEST this is the camel's nose under the tent.

In fact, it's backdoor registration, which is INVARIABLY the start of the path to confiscation.

The answer is "NO".

 

[GaryS]

I agree with you, Bushmaster, but the proposal doesn't go far enough. We need complete background checks on everyone that registers to vote. We also need complete background checks on every media reporter.

After all, if we need a complete background check to exercise our rights under the Second Amendment, then we need one to exercise our rights under the entire Constitution.

 

[GaryS]

Expanding the Brady System to all gun sales is akin to authorizing the TSA to search people every time they get into their car so as to prevent auto theft.

Please don't give them any ideas!

 

[johngalt]

I think we need to pick our battles, and this is one we shouldn't fight. This measure seems reasonable, even to a majority of gun owners/NRA members, so we are told. Our friends of the opposing views opinion that WE are unreasonable is reinforced when we resist a measure such as Back ground checks. Now, if it turns out that they were disingenuous, and heaped a bunch of other stuff into the legislation calling for universal BG checks, then call them out on their motives, and fight it with everything we have. They think that we all think that every Psychopath should have a belt fed machine gun and 1 Million rounds of ammo, and of course, some do. Flapjack.

As pointed out by cmort, this will result in outlawing private sales and universal registration. This is worse than the proposed gun ban and should be fought with no quarter given.

You don't speak for "the majority of gun owners".

 

[max]

In Illinois you have a "background check" when you apply for your FOID card. After that when you buy a gun the LGS makes a computer call and gets a yes or no. The LGS does not tell the state what kind of gun you are buying or the serial #. If you sell a gun to another individual you are suppose to see their FOID card and keep track of the sale.

 

[mkk41]

Mandatory background checks have been enforced here in PA. for many years and I never had a problem with it. Only those that shoudln't be allowed to buy a gun have problems with it and I've seen many of them go balistic in the gun shop when they got the news!

I too have no problem with back-ground checks. I've done it as a buyer and and as a dealer. I've got no problem with it. It beats the old 3-5 day waiting period. I go thru it every 5 years when I get my LTCF renewed and every few years due to my job (sec clearance).

 

[tops]

As I have said before. I understand "shall not be infringed" and that is all I agree too. Machine guns have been illegal for over 75 years and the bad guys still have them. Nobody how ever shown me any law that has ever kept an outlaw from doing whatever he wanted too. All the law does is punish after the fact. Larry

 

[cmort666]

In Illinois you have a "background check" when you apply for your FOID card. After that when you buy a gun the LGS makes a computer call and gets a yes or no. The LGS does not tell the state what kind of gun you are buying or the serial #. If you sell a gun to another individual you are suppose to see their FOID card and keep track of the sale.

Illinois is the last place on earth to look for legislative examples. When it comes to gun laws, it's the last place in this universe or any other.

 

[Raider]

How long will it take to get every Felon, Whacko and Drug Addict into the Federal background check system? Months? Years? Forever? It sounds like a great idea up front but consider the time and money involved to implement this idea into a working system. Just WHO is going to decide what person goes on the list as a whacko? Is it the young man who likes rap music and walks around with his pants down so far that his underwear is showing? Should every person who takes Prozac or other anti-depression medications go on the Whacko list (remember that many of the shooters were on anti-dep meds). Are all people diagnosed with PTSD going on the no firearms list? What about the young adult whose parents had him arrested while a teenager for being rebellious? So many examples.

The above are just a few of the questions that no one has addressed in regard to who goes on the buy/no-buy background check list. This background check question is something that no one IMO should blindly support. There are too many questions that have to be answered before I can support such a measure.

Remember too that if a person is intent on doing harm, no background check in the world is going to stop him. If you really wanted a firearm, could you get it? I think so. If nothing else you could make a single shot pistol and kill an authority figure who has a real one. Does anybody remember the Liberator pistol from WW2?

This is a really slippery slope. We should all think carefully before backing such a dangerous measure.

Charlie

 

[Zactical]

I don't buy guns from individuals typically so this isn't a change for me, I get my background checked all the time and it doesn't keep me from buying guns.

The ammunition being tracked by ID possibly like sudafed is a little odd though... I like to shoot so only buying certain amounts of ammo changes that hobby...

 

[cmort666]

How long will it take to get every Felon, Whacko and Drug Addict into the Federal background check system?

The central and overriding thing to remember is that exclusion of those persons is NOT the goal of such legislation. It's to create a database, even an ILLEGAL one of people with firearms so that those firearms can be confiscated under more propitious circumstances.

 

[mkk41]

...if you know ABSOLUTELY nothing about the other side and its motivations and tactics.

At BEST this is the camel's nose under the tent.

In fact, it's backdoor registration, which is INVARIABLY the start of the path to confiscation.

The answer is "NO".

Do you know the protocals they're proposing? No , you do not as nothing official has been proposed!

Current background checks have nothing to do with registration on the Federal level. There is no FEDERAL or PA state record kept on civillian long guns other than the 4473 which stays with the dealer. PA state police keep an (illegal) record of sale of all handguns sold within the state.

Your state might do it differently.

The check is only if an individual is eligible , not convicted of any disqualifying crimes. There is no description of the gun.

FWIW;

All legal civillian-owned machine guns were registered in 1934 and there has been NO confiscation of MGs. There has been practically zero ccrimes committed with legally registered machine guns either.

 

[redlevel]

So in light of that the check ain't that big of a deal if you got nothing to hide.

I guess we need to just do away with the entire 4th Amendment. After all, you wouldn't mind getting your home/business/car/person subjected to a search without a warrant "if you got nothing to hide" now would you?