Universal Background Checks?

Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
5,717
Reaction score
12,977
Location
GA
In light of a current thread regarding degrees of 2nd Amendment support, I thought we should visit this one again. If I remember correctly, someone, maybe me, did this poll some years back. Again, as I recall, it was a pretty even split.

Should private firearms transactions between individuals be subject to a federal background check, same as is required of transactions involving FFL dealers?
 
Register to hide this ad
Whether it happens or not, in my view, it will have minuscule impact on gun related crime. Those that would commit such crimes, could not care less about background checks. They will steal, or buy guns without the background check. I’d be in favor of trying this on a trial basis for five years, in South Chicago, to see if it reduces gun related crime.
 
East coast billionaires combined their millions with millions from our local technology billionaires to collect signatures for then advertise the universal background check initiative that became law in Washington.

Now, in Washington, to loan a reproduction flint lock to a neighbor for them to hunt with we have to go the an FFL together, then, if it is not held by the store through the waiting period, we both have to go back to the store together a second time for me to hand him the flint lock. To return it the process is reversed and I have to pass the back ground check and wait through the waiting period before I can get my flintlock back.

In Washington all cartridge guns for which ammunition is available on the commercial market are transferred as modern guns. That would include the first Colt Peace Maker made in 1873. Also all muzzle loaders made after 1897 are transferred the same as modern guns.

Supposedly that should make solving crimes faster. One reason it does not is that before the universal background check law took effect the state was running two and half years behind getting modern pistol transfers entered into their computer. The legislature is under court order to better fund public education. For lack of funding over 1200 rape evidence kits await processing. Getting all the additional gun transfers into the computer in a timely fashion is never going to happen.

Do you really want this in your state?
 
Last edited:
It is useless to have background checks at all.

The feds don't enforce them. Less than 1/10 of one percent of those who lie on 4473's are prosecuted AND just about all of those that are, that offense is just an add on to get them to plead to other charges.

Passing laws for the sake of passing laws is abject insanity and nothing but a vehicle to further suppress those the left despises.

When the left asks us to compromise on background checks tell them, yes we'll compromise. We want universal reciprocity on concealed carry and a universal, full repeal of background check laws. Then watch their heads explode.

Think about it, that's what they have been doing to us for over fifty years. Time we started using their tactics.

To paraphrase my former neighbor, Jimmy Valvano (yes I live about three miles from where he lived) “Don’t give IN. Don’t ever give IN,”
 
Last edited:
If the feds can't/won't/don't do it, the states will.

I don't like background checks and the resulting paper trail, but I won't sell a firearm to anyone w/out going through an FFL - Not just because now the law in my state, which it is, but more importantly it is a CYA for me.
 
In PA long guns can be sold FTF no FFL transfer necessary.

Handguns must, by law, be transferred through a FFL holder.

If I know someone well enough, I'll sell them a long gun FTF.

If I don't, FFL transfer or no deal. To CMA.

And as much as I don't like it, handgun sales to friends are done through a FFL.

I wouldn't want any MORE laws, I think that we have too many already.
 
Last edited:
Why not let transfers take place between CHL holders without a background check? In most states the CHL holder has been through one. The seller could send a simple transfer record postcard sized form to BATF to be filed with the existing mountain of un-searchable 4473's. I wouldn't mind mailing them some junk mail as long as it didn't slow down my commerce. That would make the cost of 2A freedom equal to a post card stamp. I would do it.
 
Universal Background Checks........ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Why not, some might say......because it would only be throwing the "antis" another bone and if history/experience has shown or at least should have shown all of us, you give them a bone and they still want the entire body. Universal background checks will not reduce crime it will only serve to embolden the antis to want more.

Don
 
“Universal background checks” would require massive Gov’t spending, virtually kill gun shows and make friend/family transfers difficult. Laws like this punish law abiding citizens and have no effect on criminals/crazies. Those with bad intent buy their guns on the black market or steal them. We probably have close to a billion firearms in this country. Do you really think it’s wise to label countless owners criminals by statute?

The inevitable federal registration makes it easier to chip away at entire classes of firearms, one at at a time. If you think your muzzle loaders will always be safe, you’re living in a dreamworld.

Flat out NO.
 
Last edited:
I think laws that are unenforcable just breed contempt of the law in general. Any universal federal background check would fall under that.

The Brady check done by FFL’s is enforcable because they all are federally licensed, have to keep records, and don’t want to jeopardize their livelihood.

Any federal requirement on consenting adults who are just private citizens would not be. We have the requirement in Oregon for any private-party sale to go through an FFL with full Brady check plus state police running the gun; for obvious reasons there are no statistics on how many folks sell guns FTF without complying (and paying the fees), but my FFL says he does suspiciously few such transfers and from what he hears, so do other dealers :rolleyes:
 
All that matters to the proponents is making it more difficult for law abiding citizens to enjoy their constitutional rights to protect themselves. I don't believe their bodyguards are armed with pepper spray. All these proposals should be collectively entitled the Felony Encouragement Act. We cannot let them chip away at the Constitution.
 
Ματθιας;141068029 said:
Isn't registration, at the federal level, illegal. Wasn't it in one of the laws like Firearm Owners Protection Act or something?

The GCA of 1968 prohibited it, but it didn’t stop unelected bureaucrats from collecting data. It also didn’t stop them from banning and prohibiting firearms/accessories that they previously deemed acceptable.

DO NOT buy into the rhetoric. Support the NRA and protect your rights.
 
No. Everybody assumes that:
1. The files will be readily accessible.
2. They will be up to date up to the minute.
3. The people maintaining them will be VERY conscientious
4. There will be no false or malicious information in them.
 
I'm against UBCs for two reasons:

1. The feds aren't prosecuting those felons who attempt to purchase a gun and are denied and

2. In order for UBCs to work it will require registration of each person's firearms. Without that the government will have no way of knowing that a transfer has taken place aside from someone reporting it. I am dead set against registration.
 
The GCA of 1968 prohibited it, but it didn’t stop unelected bureaucrats from collecting data. It also didn’t stop them from banning and prohibiting firearms/accessories that they previously deemed acceptable.

DO NOT buy into the rhetoric. Support the NRA and protect your rights.
I'm not saying I buy into anything. Far from it. I'm just asking.
 
How about a government registration system to post anything on Twitter or Facebook? Limit one right you end up limiting them all.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top