Titan
Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 725
- Reaction score
- 92
Legal gun owners need to stop making our fight more difficult than it is.
Gun Background Checks Supported By More Than 90 Percent
- Thread starter USAF385
- Start date
Legal gun owners need to stop making our fight more difficult than it is.
stumper
US Veteran
Right now the media is pushing a statistic saying 40% of gun sales do not involve a background check (the "Lopphole"). I do not think this statistic is true - anymore. It came from a study in the Klinton years and I think things have changed since then. There are many states that require sales to go through dealers and many more that require handgun sales in particular to go through a dealer or be done only with people that have had a background check done (CCP or a purchase permit or FOID card in some states). I know there are some free states that are still open on private sales but seemingly less all the time. I have seen it change drasticly here in NC since the 90s. The gun shows used to be full of private sales on the floor, probably more than dealer sales, but these days there are virtually none. When we enacted CCP in NC in early 96', way down in the fine print (that no one saw) was the requirement that all pistol transfers required a purchase permit to be obtained and exchanged. Since then rules enacted buy the show promoters, more police / ATF present and more crackdowns have eliminated most private pistol sales - and many long gun sales too. These days too since more and more people have CCPs most seller I know use these to verify eligibility of a potential buyer. In short this "Lopphole" **** is way overblown in terms of its size and severity.
All of that aside - for those that support "Universal" background checks, I still ask the same basic question - do we want to give all citizens the right to conduct a background check on their fellow citizens - and if so what would this system look like???
627 city hunter
Member
NATO forces arrive to help confiscate?
What kinda nutcase is against background checks?
Depends on how onerous the background check is. They can make where it so that it is difficult to pass for many people. Have your ever taken antidepressants? Have your ever had a problem with alcohol but not now? The list could go on and on. It just depends on the details. So I may be your nutcase in some cases.
Buffalohunter60
US Veteran
They already have background checks....I am against any more of the same ...if that makes me a nutcase in your opinion...so be it. read the above statements by knowledgable sources and you may come to understand why.
Buffalohunter60
US Veteran
You have to be joking...right? If Nato troops come on US soil...I expect they will be considered the enemy by all sworn Military Froces and all Vetrens. They have never been very good at solving forgein problems before when facing a much smaller force than they would face here in the US....it will never happen.
627 city hunter
Member
Unless you suggest nothing will come of any of this and the Senate will not sign any further bills.
Do you think the people will comply? I do not.
I think perhaps this will elevate the populace to being under Marshall Law.
If the general populace won't register guns and the D of HS has difficulty taking them and police or military mostly stand down, I figured the UN would be the next obvious force used.
You know Agenda 21?
Who else would assist in the "peaceful" disarmament of the American populace?
Do you think the people will comply? I do not.
I think perhaps this will elevate the populace to being under Marshall Law.
If the general populace won't register guns and the D of HS has difficulty taking them and police or military mostly stand down, I figured the UN would be the next obvious force used.
You know Agenda 21?
Who else would assist in the "peaceful" disarmament of the American populace?
Last edited:
Buffalohunter60
US Veteran
Any attempt to disarm the American people will not be peaceful....and the UN does not have even close to enough people to do it. Where I live...almost everyone has guns (and know how to use them)Many are Vets and will not comply....you cound not pay me enough money to try knocking in their doors.....no one wants direct combat.......but thats what will happen and they will lose their will to go down that road as their gang gets thinned. The UN would not do that job...and could not survive in the enviroment they would be in.
Are you aware of Agenda oathkeepers?
Last edited:
627 city hunter
Member
Yes, I fully support them and even like their cause on FB.
I just wanted your opinion really and I agree with it.
I just wanted your opinion really and I agree with it.
Buffalohunter60
US Veteran
627 City...I did look up agenda 21....something to keep an eye on also...thanks for the heads up.
I find it hard to believe the posts in this link.
So many people have absolutely no problem with just filling out the little form and waiting 5 minutes to buy a firearm!
I'm guessing most of those people are under 50 and were raised in the society that Big Brother knows best environment. All the fuss and checks have not prevented ONE killing!! But it does get the young ones used to be checked on, told what to do, etc.
The gun law of 1968 which pertains to all 300 MILLION Americans was caused by knee-jerk reactions to the killings of ONLY THREE PEOPLE.
John Kennedy
Martin Luther King
Robert Kennedy
Three deaths have penalized 300 MILLION people and costs BILLIONS of dollars in an attempt to corral the peons of this country.
Now, they wish to continue the witch hunt one more time since the 1994 anti-gun laws proved that it did not work.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results!!
Just my opinion......and I believe the 1st Amendment is out of intensive care unit.
So many people have absolutely no problem with just filling out the little form and waiting 5 minutes to buy a firearm!
I'm guessing most of those people are under 50 and were raised in the society that Big Brother knows best environment. All the fuss and checks have not prevented ONE killing!! But it does get the young ones used to be checked on, told what to do, etc.
The gun law of 1968 which pertains to all 300 MILLION Americans was caused by knee-jerk reactions to the killings of ONLY THREE PEOPLE.
John Kennedy
Martin Luther King
Robert Kennedy
Three deaths have penalized 300 MILLION people and costs BILLIONS of dollars in an attempt to corral the peons of this country.
Now, they wish to continue the witch hunt one more time since the 1994 anti-gun laws proved that it did not work.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results!!
Just my opinion......and I believe the 1st Amendment is out of intensive care unit.
Smokin' Iron
Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2009
- Messages
- 307
- Reaction score
- 203
Because they have become more politician than cop. Many police chiefs of larger departments will not hesitate to even screw over their own rank and file for political gain.
With my job I have to deal with many police chiefs. Some are still policemen at heart managing a department. They are easy to talk with and are open to different points of view. But those good chiefs sadly are in the minority. The majority picture themselves as some sort of a monarch ruling over their own little empire. You do not talk with them, you have an audience. They pontificate and you listen without interruption. They only are concerned with power and career. Your rights under the constitution are only a minor inconvenience to them.
stumper
US Veteran
I guess I could be one of those nutcases. It all depends on what the system looks like and so far "no one" has given any indication of how this would work. So far the entire discussion on "Universal Background Checks" is nothing but a feel good sound bite without any detail or substance.
I'd ask you this, what kind of nutcase wants to allow his neighbors - or any stranger to conduct background checks on him and his family for no reason - or wants to allow the government to collect more data on his firearm ownership?
jaykellogg
Absent Comrade
I'm ok with a background check as long as the FFL burns my paperwork immediately after the NICS.Otherwise NO
I am against universal background checks because I think criminals will utilize the underground market in stolen/unregistered guns, but as ladder13 said, I could support it if there was a federal law forbidding keeping a register of guns bought. As I understand things, some states maintain a registry of guns purchased. I don't mind paperwork in a FFL indicating I bought a gun as long as that is where it stays.
BTW, if a gun is new or near new it is possible to trace through the serial number. I have a S&W model 1905 made in 1919 that I bought this January. The only record of this belonging to me is in Alan's Pawn and unless the Police got extremely lucky they would not know to look there. If it was a new S&W then the S&W company would have records of where it went. Once it was traced to Alan's they could tell to whom it was sold.
I suppose anytime you buy a used gun the possibility exists that a crime was committed with it. It is probably good to be able to prove when you bought it.
A better question is what kind of nutcase thinks that any type of gun control is going to have any effect whatsoever on what criminals do?
Excellent example of so-called gun owners are our worst enemies - they side with the gun banners.
Pasifikawv
Member
Here's another scenario showing why making private "transfers" between law-abiding individuals an illegal act is not such a good idea:
Each year you and your wife take an extended vacation of at least two weeks. For safety and security purposes, you always take your firearms to your long-time friend and neighbor to store in his safe while your home is empty. When you return from vacation, you collect your guns and take them back home.
If the proposal for "universal" checks passes as written, this would make you a felon and you would loose all your rights to own guns and vote. Your friend would also become a felon and loose his rights to own guns and vote.
In the scenario above, unless you and your friend register the "transfer" thru a federal firearms licensee for the "universal" check (technically making your guns the property of your friend), you cannot let your friend store the guns in his safe while you are away. Upon return, you cannot collect your guns and return them to your house unless this new "transfer" is also registered thru a federal firearms licensee for the "universal" check.
When it becomes a felony for law-abiding citizens and gun owners to do routine "transfers" such as letting Cousin Bob borrow a hunting rifle at deer camp, swapping shotguns with a long-time trap shooting buddy, leaving your revolver with Aunt Sally for a week because she is being stalked or threatened, trading a relic to your friend and fellow collector, gifting Little Johnny a squirrel gun for Christmas, storing your guns with a friend while on vacation: yet does nothing to impact the black-market transfer of illegal guns by thugs and criminals: ask yourself why? What is the real intent? Who is really impacted? What is the true purpose? Who benefits from making innocuous "transfers" between law-abiding gun owners a felony offense that results in loss of all future gun rights and voting rights? If it will not impact illegal gun sales on the criminal black market, what is the impact - and who is impacted? Maybe turning law-abiding gun owners into non-voting, non-gun-owning felons on technicalities is the hidden intent of the law?
Each year you and your wife take an extended vacation of at least two weeks. For safety and security purposes, you always take your firearms to your long-time friend and neighbor to store in his safe while your home is empty. When you return from vacation, you collect your guns and take them back home.
If the proposal for "universal" checks passes as written, this would make you a felon and you would loose all your rights to own guns and vote. Your friend would also become a felon and loose his rights to own guns and vote.
In the scenario above, unless you and your friend register the "transfer" thru a federal firearms licensee for the "universal" check (technically making your guns the property of your friend), you cannot let your friend store the guns in his safe while you are away. Upon return, you cannot collect your guns and return them to your house unless this new "transfer" is also registered thru a federal firearms licensee for the "universal" check.
When it becomes a felony for law-abiding citizens and gun owners to do routine "transfers" such as letting Cousin Bob borrow a hunting rifle at deer camp, swapping shotguns with a long-time trap shooting buddy, leaving your revolver with Aunt Sally for a week because she is being stalked or threatened, trading a relic to your friend and fellow collector, gifting Little Johnny a squirrel gun for Christmas, storing your guns with a friend while on vacation: yet does nothing to impact the black-market transfer of illegal guns by thugs and criminals: ask yourself why? What is the real intent? Who is really impacted? What is the true purpose? Who benefits from making innocuous "transfers" between law-abiding gun owners a felony offense that results in loss of all future gun rights and voting rights? If it will not impact illegal gun sales on the criminal black market, what is the impact - and who is impacted? Maybe turning law-abiding gun owners into non-voting, non-gun-owning felons on technicalities is the hidden intent of the law?
Maybe I am not reading this correctly, but doesn't this provide an exemption for the situation you describe?
''(f) EXCEPTIONS.--Unless prohibited by any other provision of law, subsections (b) and (c) shall not apply to any transfer of a firearm between an unlicensed transferor and unlicensed transferee, if--
(1) the transfer is a bona fide gift between immediate family members, including spouses, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, and grandchildren;
(2) the transfer occurs by operation of law, or because of the death of another person for whom the unlicensed transferor is an executor or administrator of an estate or a trustee of a trust created in a will;
(3) the transfer is temporary and occurs while in the home of the unlicensed transferee, if--
(A) the unlicensed transferee is not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms; and
(B) the unlicensed transferee believes that possession of the firearm is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the unlicensed transferee;
[...]
(6) the transfer is a temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title that takes place--
''(A) at a shooting range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization organized for conservation purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms;
(B) at a target firearm shooting competition under the auspices of or approved by a State agency or nonprofit organization; or
(C) while hunting, fishing, or trapping, if--
''(i) the activity is legal in all places where the unlicensed transferee possesses the firearm; and
(ii) the unlicensed transferee holds any required license or permit." [H.R. 137]
Not that I am hoping this comes to pass...but I think it is important for us all to know the facts of the proposed legislation.
Last edited:
Pasifikawv
Member
Not exempt: the firearms moved from one house to another. Only those that occur "in the home of the unlicensed transferee" are exempt (or at a registered range, formal competition, or official hunting event -for some of the other examples. Far too easy to get tripped up and made a felon on the technicalities and wishy-washy definitions. And it does nothing to lower rates of violence committed by criminals with their black-market guns)
Last edited:
