Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Universal Background Check...


Texas Lizard

Recommended Posts

Can some give honest info on this and how is it different from what we have now....By some opinions it will save lives...To me background checks are for honest people...I know this a can of worms, let's keep it the info of what it is...

 

Texas Lizard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Supposed to make people feel safer.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you hear politicians talk about universal background checks, they are referring to background checks for all private sales. That means if you sell a gun to your friend, the sale would have to be done by an FFL dealer. In my opinion, it would solve nothing..

 

Irish Tom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've had universal background checks in WA for several years now, yet people still sell guns with just a handshake because they know the chances of Big Brother finding out about it are zero. UBC's are completely meaningless unless every single firearm is registered to its current owner like a vehicle is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I thought we already had NICS, National Instant background Check System by the FBI.

https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics

BUT! NICS only checks to see if you’re okay to buy a firearm if you are going through a dealer. It isn’t required in some states when doing a private party transfer.

 

This UBS passed by the house would basically stop private party sales and transfers. 

 

I have mixed feelings on this. I should be able to transfer guns to family if I want.

I do not think that some questionable dirtbag should be able to build an arsenal by buying guns at yard sales. (Think I am exaggerating? I know guys that have done just that in Oregon and Pennsylvania. And no, I wouldn’t sell the guys I know that have done this a gun)

 

In my opinion, UBS is the first step to Universal Registration. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Sixgun Sheridan said:

We've had universal background checks in WA for several years now, yet people still sell guns with just a handshake because they know the chances of Big Brother finding out about it are zero. UBC's are completely meaningless unless every single firearm is registered to its current owner like a vehicle is.

 

So is the 20 dollar online gun safety class you now have to take to buy semi auto firearms...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Background checks, period, whether "universal" or just at the FFL, are a waste of time, and an insult to every honest person out there.

 

The government presupposes that I am a criminal, and should not be allowed to buy a gun. Then they do a background check on me, and discover that - oh wow, he's honest - and then they will let me buy a gun. And the next time I want to buy a gun, they again presupposed I am a criminal, and I have to prove by this stupid background check that I am not.

 

They were all excited a couple years ago, saying how umpteen thousand people have been prevented from getting a gun because of the background checks. Were any of these people - who were not legally allowed to buy a gun, but were attempting to do so, which is a felony - were any of these people arrested? No.

 

It's a waste of time. But it gives the government something else to spend our tax money on. And it makes people think that the government is trying to protect us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also the "transfer" part that is a pain.

 

If you have a neighbor in the military who is being deployed, and he wants to leave his guns with you, guess what? You both have to go to an FFL, pay a fee, and get checked. When he comes back and wants his guns you two do the same dance.

 

If I borrow a gun at a match, is that a transfer as well?

 

Yes, I can see the lines of gang members going to an FFL to get transfers done. Not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it really necessary to transfer ownership of guns held for deploying soldiers?

 

I can give my guns to any properly licensed fellow gun owner to hold pending my return; in MA (and many other states) , it's a "bailment", and title to the guns does not change hands- just bare possession.

 

We have UBCs here; even in a private sale.  Fine by me; let's me know that I'm selling to someone who can pass the NICS process; not perfect, but it should screen out most felons.  Personally, I think that there is very little that can be done to effectively screen the unbalanced folks who shoot up chruches and schools.  For those events, the best preventative is still a trained armed team in the building - the "good guys with guns".   I go through Courthouse metal detectors, manned by armed deputies and Federal marshals, several times a week; personally, I certainly value the lives of children as much as I do lawyers and Judges; I see no reason why the same security should not be at schools, and I dismiss the "traumatic for the children" argument as political hyperbole.  

 

LL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m curious why everyone seems to assume that the “solution” (assuming one exists) must come from the Federal government?  Cities, counties, and states can pass laws.  Why must the Feds address these incidents?

 

As I understand it (not a lawyer remember) the Feds have authority over terrorism and hate crimes against certain specific protected groups.   How do these recent incidents qualify for Federal action?   (Other than giving folks in Washington a chance to be on tv)

 

Perhaps the Federal authorities are eager to designate an incident as “terrorism” or a  “hate crime” just so they can get involved?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sixgun Sheridan said:

Once the red flag and UBC laws are passed (and they will be) and shooting deaths still fail to go down they'll be after more of the pie. We all know it.

 

Yes, we do....because we all know it has nothing to do with stopping crime....if it was, the first thing they would do is start prosecuting people that break the gun laws we already have to the FULL extent of the law, and keep criminals in prison where they belong...but that might make too much sense, and 6 Philly cops might not be on medical leave right now....<_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that for my part I will not sell a gun to someone unless the deal goes through an FFL, even when I have lived in places where I didn’t need to do so for precisely the reason Loophole Larue cited.

 

I wanted to sell a handgun and a rifle when I in lived in Oregon and a neighbor of mine said he wanted it. I told him we needed to go to the LGS to transfer it and he said “No, we don’t need to do that here in Oregon.”

I insisted and he got all weird about it and got PO’d and left. I found out later that he was banned from having guns due to a domestic violence issue. I never heard the details because no one would talk about it, which definitely made me leery. The longer I knew the guy the more I knew I made the right decision. 

 

Now, I have made deals with fellow CAS folks in the past but that was different. And that’s all I will say about that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a huge difference between a Background check and Red Flag laws.


Background checks are done BEFORE arms are purchased.
Nothing is confiscated.
No weapon database is maintained.


The background check database is only as accurate as the folks who update it.

There are well documented cases of bona-fide nutbags not being entered into this database.

As a result, the nutbag passes the background check and goes on to kill people.


Red Flag laws allow confiscation without due process and are based upon a whim.  

A crazy ex-wife can file an "I'm Afraid" complaint without proof, and the cops will come and empty your gun safe.

A disgruntled Democrat can be angry at your son's basketball hoop over the garage and file an "I'm Afraid" complaint.


This is baloney.
 

We have all seen so many activist Democrat judges who are more than willing to step up and take away our rights.
I see Red Flags combining with Social Media.
Any cupcake who is offended by a social media post can file an "I'm Afraid" red flag complaint.
A gun registry is crucial for the Red Flag laws, so they know what to grab.

It takes a whole lot of money (read: lawyers) and time to get your guns back.
My neighbor had it happen to him from his crazy ex-wife filing an "I'm Afraid" complaint.
The cops grabbed his guns, but he never got the ammo back.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Calico Mary said:

 

Yes, we do....because we all know it has nothing to do with stopping crime....if it was, the first thing they would do is start prosecuting people that break the gun laws we already have to the FULL extent of the law, and keep criminals in prison where they belong...but that might make too much sense, and 6 Philly cops might not be on medical leave right now....<_<

It has everything to do with stopping crime. At least in the minds of the liberals who think all you need to do is pass a law to change the world.

We've had UBCs in Colorado now for a couple of years. Oddly enough, we still have crime. Something needs to be done! :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought citizens should have the ability to do a NICS check for private sales to strangers.  What I don't like is the requirement (even for people you've known all your life) and the fact that it would have to go through an FFL where it would be recorded. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something WILL change. It almost has to (politically speaking). UBCs might be the most innocuous of the proposed legislation. I know it won't end there and I am firmly against red flag laws, but quite possibly the UBCs, although they won't do anything in reality, might be a political compromise to slow the fight.

 

Trump already went for banning bump stocks so you can be assured he'll move on something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't make it any plainer than this.

 

 

cake11.jpg

cake22.jpg

cake33.jpg

cake44.jpg (747Ã886)

cake55.jpg (738Ã716)

 

Once you make a compromise you will NEVER EVER get your cake (firearms) back.

NO MORE COMPROMISE!!

I'll choose dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery every time!

Stolen from SDJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First I remain skeptical that Congress will be able to pass any gun control bill.  The anti-gun element will overreach and refuse to compromise.  The pro-gun element will want something in return for UBC, perhaps national CCW reciprocity that the anti-gun won't accept.

 

Even if the bill passes through Congress and the White House signs it, expect the bill to be challenged in court as a violation of the 10th Amendment, the "Commerce Clause".  There may be challenges from both sides of the political spectrum, because if such a law is allowed to stand, it could impact other areas that the various states don't want the Federal government involved in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about a UBC in exchange for deregulation of suppressors from NFA?

 

:D

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Dantankerous said:

How about a UBC in exchange for deregulation of suppressors from NFA?

 

:D

 

 

 

AND reciprocal CCW, AND absolutely NO restrictions on ammo purchases (Take THAT, Newsom!), AND a ban on "cooling off periods" if you already own firearms, AND.... [insert more "ANDs" here]    <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The antis will NEVER compromise by giving us back something we want. Their idea of "compromise" is "we'll only take away SOME of your guns... for now". Once they finally pass an "assault weapons" ban (and they will), what will be next?

 

1. Ban them first, and grandfather the existing ones. As soon as we have yet another mass shooting they'll want to ban even the grandfathered ones and force us to accept a mandatory buyback at a fraction of the guns' worth.

 

2. We'll then have another mass shooting, probably with a handgun or pump shotgun holding 6+ rounds, and those will be next on the ban list.

 

3. Rinse and repeat, until finally we're left with nothing but heavily restricted and licensed .22 rifles and 3-round capacity bolt actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 said:

 

AND reciprocal CCW, AND absolutely NO restrictions on ammo purchases (Take THAT, Newsom!), AND a ban on "cooling off periods" if you already own firearms, AND.... [insert more "ANDs" here]    <_<


I have invested 140 days of waiting periods this year in CA.
I won't take delivery of my last revolver until the end of September.

At SedaliaDave:

"Half a loaf is better than none, and that for now we’d be happy to take just a slice."

"Our ultimate goal—total control of handguns in the United States—is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to 10 years."

"The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. "

"The second problem is to get handguns registered."

"And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition—except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors—totally illegal."

--Nelson "Pete" Shields, Handgun Control Inc, New Yorker Magazine, July 2, 1976

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Sixgun Sheridan said:

The antis will NEVER compromise by giving us back something we want. Their idea of "compromise" is "we'll only take away SOME of your guns... for now". Once they finally pass an "assault weapons" ban (and they will), what will be next?

 

1. Ban them first, and grandfather the existing ones. As soon as we have yet another mass shooting they'll want to ban even the grandfathered ones and force us to accept a mandatory buyback at a fraction of the guns' worth.

 

2. We'll then have another mass shooting, probably with a handgun or pump shotgun holding 6+ rounds, and those will be next on the ban list.

 

3. Rinse and repeat, until finally we're left with nothing but heavily restricted and licensed .22 rifles and 3-round capacity bolt actions.

 

I cannot disagree with any of this.

 

All true.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of what we all think or talk about here our words are only reaching us. 

I am formulating my letters to the House and the Senate representatives to express my opinion that they need to quit looking at the objects and start looking at the real problem. There are NO true mental health programs in this country. The revolving door of crime and prison time is ridiculous. We have District Attorneys, Chiefs of Police and elected officials openly defying the laws and the Constitution of this nation. The actions of many in the government impact everyone and these actions also set off those that are unstable and weak minded. And as a result their only response is violence.

 

This used to be a country of laws. This used to be a country where ethics and morality were virtues. It is no longer virtuous. These so-called “Leaders” aren’t leaders. They are a drain on everything that made this country great. They need to hear that and they need to hear it from everyone that gives a damn about this country.

 

They also need to reign in this so-called media. The Press has always been contentious but in the past 40 years they have manipulated politics and society. Freedom of the Press does not mean freedom to destroy everything in the Constitution except the First Amendment. It’s time to start holding them accountable. 

 

 

 

Now I just need to find a way to write this so it doesn’t get tossed in the “whacko mail” bin...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Irish Tom said:

When you hear politicians talk about universal background checks, they are referring to background checks for all private sales. That means if you sell a gun to your friend, the sale would have to be done by an FFL dealer. In my opinion, it would solve nothing..

 

Irish Tom.

But it won't cost nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did a quick DuckDuck Walk, looking for any reasonably reliable anaysis of whether UBC legislation could have or likely will help prevent mass shootings.  TIME says it hasn't and probably won't; so does CNN.  I can't find any source, other than politicians and political advocacy groups, that claims that it has or will.   Feel good proposal, I think.

 

Someone above suggested that going to your LGS to run a UBC creates a record of the transaction.  Is this an accessible record?  I thought that Federal law made records of sales inaccessible unless the government is actually investigating a crime?

 

LL

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Calico Mary said:

uh, Loophole, you actually expect the Feds to obey their own laws?????????????????:blink::blink:

 

Well, CM, I guess you have to have SOME level of trust; otherwise, you may as well  find that shack up in the woods, install some extra reflective foil on the roof, and spend your days reloading and nights walking guard on the perimeter.  ;)  I'm a Reagan kind of guy...trust, but verify.

 

LL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't trust anyone, least of all the Feds....and that shack up in the woods sounds like heaven to me, but unfortunately that was beyond my price range.....;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.