Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As I understand it, the only changes would be to make this process mandatory at gun shows and to include more info in the database, such as mental/emotional issues.
I get the impression that many who oppose the expanded checks worry about their continued eligibility if this goes into effect.
It is mandatory at gun shows when buying from an FFL dealer. Have you been to a gun show? I've never seen a seller at a table not be an FFL. I have seen people walking around with a rifle slung over their shoulder with a price showing but how is that any different than a swap meet at your local range or finding someone selling a gun in the classifieds of your local paper?
I vehemently oppose the expanded checks and my record is and will continue to be spotless. It is a source of pride that unlike some family members, I've been able to stay away from a life of crime.
It is mandatory at gun shows when buying from an FFL dealer. Have you been to a gun show?
Last one I went to had more velvet paintings and plastic bead "jewelry" than decent firearms. Lots of rusty overpriced milsurps and Nazi paraphernalia, though.
I didn't buy any of it.
Quote:
I've never seen a seller at a table not be an FFL. I have seen people walking around with a rifle slung over their shoulder with a price showing but how is that any different than a swap meet at your local range or finding someone selling a gun in the classifieds of your local paper?
I vehemently oppose the expanded checks and my record is and will continue to be spotless. It is a source of pride that unlike some family members, I've been able to stay away from a life of crime.
I have heard a lot of people who oppose new regs on guns say that Universal Background Checks would be unenforceable, including myself. I have explained many times to people why they can't be enforced. Perhaps I am missing something though. What I have never seen, is someone who supports them to explain how the failed senate bill that required Universal Background Checks with no registry requirement could be enforceable?
No one knows who owns guns, nor do they know how many, or of what make, model, serial number, or caliber. Say Private Seller A wants to sell a Glock 19 to Private Buyer B at his/her kitchen table. How do we enforce the law that requires he do a background check on his buyer since no agency knows he even owns that Glock 19? Since no one knew he had the Glock 19, it couldn't be traced back to him if it were used in a crime, and it couldn't be verified that he neglected his duty under the law to do a background check.
How would the failed background check law be enforced?
In the example you gave, the law could only be enforced if Private Buyer B subsequently misused his new Glock 19. If, say, Private Buyer B had a history of domestic violence and used the gun to kill his estranged wife, then Seller A could be held partially liable, criminally and/or civilly, for failing to do a background check. Lots and lots of laws work this way. To suggest a law is unenforceable because the legal system is unable to interrupt the kitchen table transaction you described is to create an impossibly high standard of what "enforcable" means.
a) Guy wants to make a firearm purchase through a dealer, gunshop, etc.
b) Buyer fills out a form and provides photo ID to the seller.
c) Seller contacts the FBI center for an OK on the sale.
d) FBI checks their database to verify identity, citizenship, and confirm
suitable behavior.
e) Decision on sale is made according to the info in the FBI files.
Yep.... I'm sure thug A will say to thug B, "lets go down to the gunshop before I sell you this here gun" I'm sure that will happen Secondly, why should private businesses be forced to do the background check? They aren't agents of the ATF or any other government agency. They don't work for the government in any way and doing these background checks for two private citizens won't improve their bottom line in any way, so why should they do it? Thirdly, what if they do decide to do the checks, but charge astronomically high fees to do it? Will police stations do the check? Maybe Wal-Mart will do it? Yeah, because I don't foresee any problems arising from citizens walking in to a police station or through Wal-Mart with guns.....
Quote:
As I understand it, the only changes would be to make this process mandatory
at gun shows and to include more info in the database, such as mental/emotional
issues
We are talking about "Universal Background Checks" which would encompass all private sales.
Quote:
I get the impression that many who oppose the expanded checks worry about their
continued eligibility
You mean felons are currently eligible under the law to purchase firearms? There aren't already laws against that?
Your attempt to be a smart-a** just ended up making you look a fool.
In the example you gave, the law could only be enforced if Private Buyer B subsequently misused his new Glock 19. If, say, Private Buyer B had a history of domestic violence and used the gun to kill his estranged wife, then Seller A could be held partially liable, criminally and/or civilly, for failing to do a background check. Lots and lots of laws work this way. To suggest a law is unenforceable because the legal system is unable to interrupt the kitchen table transaction you described is to create an impossibly high standard of what "enforcable" means.
No, you couldn't prove that the seller didn't do the background check, because records of background checks must be destroyed within 24 hours under current law. Any attempt to change this law will likely fail because if the government kept records of all background checks conducted, and especially if all private transactions must go through this check, then that it tant-amount to a centralized registry.
Yep.... I'm sure thug A will say to thug B, "lets go down to the gunshop before I sell you this here gun" I'm sure that will happen Secondly, why should private businesses be forced to do the background check? They aren't agents of the ATF or any other government agency. They don't work for the government in any way and doing these background checks for two private citizens won't improve their bottom line in any way, so why should they do it? Thirdly, what if they do decide to do the checks, but charge astronomically high fees to do it? Will police stations do the check? Maybe Wal-Mart will do it? Yeah, because I don't foresee any problems arising from citizens walking in to a police station or through Wal-Mart with guns.....
We are talking about "Universal Background Checks" which would encompass all private sales.
You mean felons are currently eligible under the law to purchase firearms? There aren't already laws against that?
Your attempt to be a smart-a** just ended up making you look a fool.
The only one talking about felons is you.
Your post makes it sound like you've never bought a firearm at a gun shop.
No, you couldn't prove that the seller didn't do the background check, because records of background checks must be destroyed within 24 hours under current law. Any attempt to change this law will likely fail because if the government kept records of all background checks conducted, and especially if all private transactions must go through this check, then that it tant-amount to a centralized registry.
Does the name "Edward Snowden" mean anything to you?
The government would have no problem creating or maintaining such registry. At least, in this this case, the registry would have a legitimate purpose.
Does the name "Edward Snowden" mean anything to you?
The government would have no problem creating or maintaining such registry. At least, in this this case, the registry would have a legitimate purpose.
I'm well aware the government would have no problem creating it, the point is, it will be fought tooth and nail because must gun owners don't want their guns registered, nor WOULD a large majority of gun owners register the guns they own currently. That "legit purpose" you speak of would be to both harass Americans who exercise their second amendment rights by creating special taxes and fees for particular weapons and outright confiscation. Most gun owners would flatly refuse to submit to any registry requirement, period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo
The only one talking about felons is you.
That IS the target with this type of legislation is it not? Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals i.e. felons?
Quote:
Your post makes it sound like you've never bought a firearm at a gun shop.
Sounds foolish, in fact.
I guess witty banter passes for a legitimate argument these days...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Secondly, why should private businesses be forced to do the background check? They aren't agents of the ATF or any other government agency. They don't work for the government in any way and doing these background checks for two private citizens won't improve their bottom line in any way, so why should they do it? Thirdly, what if they do decide to do the checks, but charge astronomically high fees to do it? Will police stations do the check? Maybe Wal-Mart will do it? Yeah, because I don't foresee any problems arising from citizens walking in to a police station or through Wal-Mart with guns.....
