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.
This is a topic that really needs to be examined closely. On the surface and in particular to uninformed voters where these measures have been put to ballot, it sounds like a good idea. Just "common sense." A simplistic way to keep criminals from buying guns not just from licensed dealers, but from anyone. However it's NOT that simple and overlooks some very important issues that I have to date not seen addressed.
Firstly, criminals will not follow any such law when they sell any gun to anyone. Their inventory is stolen any way and is already well outside all other existing laws. Second, and more important, such requirements are totally unenforceable. There is no way for the state to know when any individual firearm changed hands. Most guns have been in circulation for quite a while. There is no way to determine when a gun was sold to who or where it originally was purchased. It could have changed owner several times since the original purchase.
NV voters approved such a measure last November, and now the state has found out they can't enforce it. Not without ( here comes the caveat) a central data base of firearms in private hands. They have to know who owns what guns. Without that, there is just no way to know whether or not an individual gun was sold within the guidelines of the new law. That horse has left the barn and been running wild for far to long, in figurative terms.
Private BC laws basically requires all firearms owners to operate under the same guidelines as FFL dealers. Keeping a detailed inventory of everything they own. And in order to enforce the law the state would need that list as well. There is no other way to ensure compliance. If a person sells or even gifts an individual firearm, that would have to be reported to the state complete with make, model and serial number as no longer being in their possession. In an inheritance situation it would be a nightmare.
Such laws under requirement for central registry also opens the door for the state to conduct random inventory of private owners to ensure compliance. They would be able to come into peoples homes, and make them produce all their registered firearms. "Common sense" right? They want to ensure people are following the law. Is that so bad? After all it's for the greater good, and think of the children.
The big difference between these state private BC laws and federally licensed FFL dealers is that at time of sale the make, model, type (long or hand gun) and serial number would have to be given to the enforcing agency so that their data can be updated. Federal law, the BATF, does not require this from FFL dealers , and the current BC system does not either. Private individuals will be under far stricter regulations than licensed dealers for record keeping.
BATF conducts audits annually on FFL dealers to track inventory and ensure compliance with federal laws. However they are not allowed to use the store records for a central information base. They can only check to assure all inventory left the store legally. The sales records stay with the dealer. private background check laws are nothing but an end around to establishing central firearms ownership data bases. This is something that needs to be brought up and I haven't seen even the NRA do so yet.
As I said, NV is finding all this out the hard way. It's a snow job, and I've seen even staunch 2A supporters buy off on it as a good thing. Certain details of how the state is going to enforce this law have just sailed right past people. They see it as a concession that isn't so bad and might actually do something about illegal sales to unqualified people. But it doesn't. It does however open the door wide to things the anti firearms groups have been after for years, and been unable to obtain. Complete lists of firearms and who owns them. All compiled neatly in government files.
Every country that has ever done a ban and confiscation measure has first required central registration. Australia, the poster child for the anti 2A types, did exactly that. As did the UK. Wake up firearms rights advocates. All that glitters is not gold. These details my have been inadvertent on the part of the anti gun groups when advocating for private sale BCs. But I'm dubious about that. They may not be as stupid as they sound. What I have outlined above here are glaringly obvious and serious problems with even the idea of requiring background checks for private sales.
NV has found this out. The cats out of the bag here now. Popular vote or no, they will have to go back to the drawing board with things. Now that people actually know what will be required to make the new measure work, the picture has been changed. It will require modifications to the state constitution to enforce that are not going to be as easy to sell as the original idea. "Common sense" indeed...
LMAO
If something is hard to do it is not worth doing, right? I mean it is only the lives of human beings we are talking about here.
There is something seriously wrong with the current system, it is easier to legally purchase an assault rifle than to get approved to be an Uber driver.
If something is hard to do it is not worth doing, right? I mean it is only the lives of human beings we are talking about here.
There is something seriously wrong with the current system, it is easier to legally purchase an assault rifle than to get approved to be an Uber driver.
If something is hard to do it is not worth doing, right? I mean it is only the lives of human beings we are talking about here.
There is something seriously wrong with the current system, it is easier to legally purchase an assault rifle than to get approved to be an Uber driver.
Not far enough for me. Background checks should be required to gift, or inherit to, a gun to a relative also.
Or maybe guns should just be confiscated.
Would that be far enough for you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpencerMtn
What exactly is an "assault rifle"?
It's a term that really only applies to military full auto long guns which are designed specifically to kill humans. I believe it was Feinstein who labeled the AR15 carbine an "assault weapon" and it stuck with the anti-gun crowd.
I play baseball and use a bat made by Louisville Slugger, if I hit a person with it it becomes an "assault bat". When I go to the beach I walk over rocks, if I throw them at people they become "assault rocks"... an AR15 isn't an assault rifle until it is used to hurt or kill a human, but even then it's actually just a rifle used to assault, same as the bat and rocks.
Virginia and Louisiana have no requirement that a gun be registered or require a FFL transfer a weapon between parties.
I usually consign or trade firearms at a selling dealer. That absolves me of any future scenario.
However I have sold firearms to friends and relatives. I know these people, and that's good enough for me.
I have given rifles as college graduation gifts. It's no one's business but mine.
A lot of the people that go off the hinges have no previous record of any type. No BGC is going to catch nutters.
I don't know why everyone can't understand that.
Some do and some don't. People treated for mental health, people on drugs or alcohol.
I'm not republican (to say the least) but don't want people like James Hodgkinson carrying guns. Why would republicans support people like that owning arms? The last thing that guy needed (to live a happy life) are weapons. But now, there are also "good guys" on the opposite political spectrum that want to exercise their second amendment rights and bring justice by killing democrats. There are so many in this country. If we can weed out even 30% we doing better already.
Every country that has ever done a ban and confiscation measure has first required central registration. Australia, the poster child for the anti 2A types, did exactly that. As did the UK. Wake up firearms rights advocates. All that glitters is not gold. These details my have been inadvertent on the part of the anti gun groups when advocating for private sale BCs. But I'm dubious about that. They may not be as stupid as they sound. What I have outlined above here are glaringly obvious and serious problems with even the idea of requiring background checks for private sales.
NV has found this out. The cats out of the bag here now. Popular vote or no, they will have to go back to the drawing board with things. Now that people actually know what will be required to make the new measure work, the picture has been changed. It will require modifications to the state constitution to enforce that are not going to be as easy to sell as the original idea. "Common sense" indeed...
You remember when you heard about liberal hippies and anti-war protesters spitting on our American troops returning home?
Well they learned the PR was bad, and they don't want to be ostracized like that again. So now they have the same beliefs, but hold up an American flag claiming patriotism to cloak their true feelings.
The same is true anti-gunners. They now say things like "of course everyone has a constitutional right to own firearms, we just want some common sense controls".
In reality, when these same people are speaking privately or among themselves, they have been caught saying "baby steps" or "get your foot in the door first". They would totally restrict all firearm sales and confiscate all current guns from private citizens.
They know their leftist beliefs are not only unconstitutional, but out of favor with the general public. So if they come off as the raving anti-gun lunatics that they are, they will lose every battle and be ignored.
So now they almost sound like they are pro-2nd Amendment, but in reality are wolves in sheeps clothing.
Some do and some don't. People treated for mental health, people on drugs or alcohol.
I'm not republican (to say the least) but don't want people like James Hodgkinson carrying guns. Why would republicans support people like that owning arms? The last thing that guy needed (to live a happy life) are weapons. But now, there are also "good guys" on the opposite political spectrum that want to exercise their second amendment rights and bring justice by killing democrats. There are so many in this country. If we can weed out even 30% we doing better already.
We could do better by banning all muslims from entering the country with that logic. Why would dems support people like moslem terrorists owning arms?
Liberals ideas of should, might, maybe could. Difi stuff right there.
But now, there are also "good guys" on the opposite political spectrum that want to exercise their second amendment rights and bring justice by killing democrats
Wait...what?
The fact is that conservatives are mostly responsible gun owners. Do you believe the inner city gun violence is perpetuated by conservatives? Last time I checked the inner city dwellers are 80% liberal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer
Except the truth is legal gun owners are 8 times less likely to commit crimes than the general population.
Exactly!
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.
