Want universal background checks? A question....

[ricechickie]

yes of course

but he can already be busted for that without registration laws


so what is the point

To help keep track of where guns go when sold.

 

[MXdad]

So, can't he be busted for unlawfully owning a firearm???

yep but not for failure to register

 

[MXdad]

yes of course

but he can already be busted for that without registration laws


so what is the point

To help keep track of where guns go when sold.

Criminals are going to register their guns, or buy them from a person where their is a paper trail? LOL you have to know that is not true. The only guns on a registration list will be those owned by law abiding folks.

 

[Dana7360]

I don't know where you live but there is no background check required to purchase a gun at a gun show in Washington. The link below will so you the states that do.

Gun Show Background Checks State Laws

Look at Washington. It's bright red because we don't require background checks at gun shows. This law will close that loophole and close the one for private sales.

If you read my post carefully I clearly said "someone or SOMETHING." You used your gun property and that target was destroyed. That's something. Not a someone.

All the whining and moaning from the right is just another smoke screen.

Purchases at stores have been required to have that background check for many years. No one has taken any gun from any law abiding citizen.

Why don't you want the people of Washington to be able to vote to have background checks? Do you have any good reason? Or is your excuse that the law does nothing?

If you don't believe that this law will do anything what's your problem?

I must ask, have you ever been to a gun show? My guess would be no based on the statements you are making. The link you posted is very misleading and I am sure for the average person not familiar with requirements for buying and selling firearms they may make the same wrong assumption as you just did.

Fact of the matter is that all the states in red on that map require dealers at guns shows to run BGC. As a matter of fact all states are required and do run all dealer sales through the BGC process no matter of it occurs at a gun show or at a store. There is no way around it as it is Federal Law

This link here will show you the actual requirements for dealers to sale in WA
BATFE Gun Show Guidelines - Washington Arms Collectors

The actual whining is from the Hoplophobes on the left who claim gun show loopholes when none exist. The people of DC are not going to pass UBC because it will not pass constitutional muster and because they know without mandatory registration it does not a damn thing


What shooting would have been prevented by BGC
Colorado Theater? - Nope shooter passsed BGC
Sandy Hook? - Nope guns were legally purchased, BGC performed. Shooter murdered and then stole weapons
Isla Vista? - Nope shooter passed BGC

The National Institute for Justice has admitted that Universal BGC will not work

Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registrationand an easy gun transfer process

They go on to say that Universal BGC will most likely increase the straw purchases and thefts which are currently where better than 3/4 of all crime guns come from

this does not address the largest sources (straw purchasers and theft), which would most
likely become larger if background checks at gun shows and private sellers were addressed.
The secondary market is the primary source of crime guns.

http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf

Facts are facts Universal BGC will do nothing but add a burden onto law abiding citizens by causing them to have to take a trip to a FFL each time they want to sell a gun and pay the FFL fee each time. The information above from the GOV clearly states Universal BGC checks will not have an effect on gun crime. So the question is why are you pushing it if it is shown to not work and you can't point out to a crime that would have been prevented by having Universal BGC.

The fact of the matter is criminals don't go through legal channels to obtain weapons

For me personally its not a burden when purchasing as all I do is flip out my CCW, hand over cash and walk out. Nothing further has to be run on me

No I've never been to a gun show.

Are all the sellers at the gun shows dealers or are there private sales going on too?

If the background check for gun shows isn't needed then what's your problem? Why are you upset about it if the loophole has been closed? Which I don't believe it has been.

You and people like you are all up in arms about something that you claim isn't needed and is happening already. If it is, then why are you upset?

 

[jon_berzerk]

yes of course

but he can already be busted for that without registration laws


so what is the point

To help keep track of where guns go when sold.

Criminals are going to register their guns, or buy them from a person where their is a paper trail? LOL you have to know that is not true. The only guns on a registration list will be those owned by law abiding folks.

of course felons are not going to register a firearm

yes of course

but he can already be busted for that without registration laws


so what is the point

To help keep track of where guns go when sold.

felons the very people you want to keep guns away from

are exempt from registration laws

the law would do nothing to "monitor" that

 

[Dana7360]

Register the serial number of the gun and provide a title, just like an automobile.

We're told by gun lovers that cars are just as dangerous, just as lethal as cars. If we accept this premise, then guns should be registered and titled.

Another idiot who doesnt get it.
What criminal is going to register his guns?
Hell, most honest gun owners wont register them either. It will be a bigger failure than Obamacare.

What criminal is going to register his guns?

constitutionally he is not required to register a firearm

failing to do so is not a crime for the felon

registration laws are only aimed at the legal gun owner

With every system there will be those who do not comply. Let me repeat that for clarity's sake. WITH EVERY SYSTEM THERE WILL BE THOSE WHO DO NOT COMPLY.

I wonder if that means every system is worthless?

No, but it means this one is.
Because the very people who will not comply are also the very people causing the problem. The people who will comply are also the very people who will not cause a problem.
So what have you solved?

So what have you solved?

a list of legal gun owners

to make easy for a confiscation law

Can you tell all of us when anyone has confiscated a gun from a law abiding citizen?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Register the serial number of the gun and provide a title, just like an automobile.

We're told by gun lovers that cars are just as dangerous, just as lethal as cars. If we accept this premise, then guns should be registered and titled.

Another idiot who doesnt get it.
What criminal is going to register his guns?
Hell, most honest gun owners wont register them either. It will be a bigger failure than Obamacare.

What criminal is going to register his guns?

constitutionally he is not required to register a firearm

failing to do so is not a crime for the felon

registration laws are only aimed at the legal gun owner

With every system there will be those who do not comply. Let me repeat that for clarity's sake. WITH EVERY SYSTEM THERE WILL BE THOSE WHO DO NOT COMPLY.

I wonder if that means every system is worthless?

No, but it means this one is.
Because the very people who will not comply are also the very people causing the problem. The people who will comply are also the very people who will not cause a problem.
So what have you solved?

So what have you solved?

a list of legal gun owners

to make easy for a confiscation law

Can you tell all of us when anyone has confiscated a gun from a law abiding citizen?

it has happened numerous times

California Begins Confiscating Legally-Purchased Guns

It is not surprising that the first police raids to take legally-purchased firearms from citizens are in California. Until recently, the state had the strictest gun control laws and the liberal run state government has always looked unfavorably on the Second Amendment.

Earlier this year, the state legislature expanded the list of what they call “prohibited persons” – people who have legally registered a firearm but, for various reasons, are no longer allowed their Second Amendment rights. These reasons were expanded to include people who are behind on state taxes, did not pay toll fees in a “timely” manner and a wide range of other minor misdemeanors or reported mental health concerns.

In preparation for the crackdown, the state authorized $24 million to hire additional officers to track down 20,000 people on the list. One person on this list was Joe Mendez.

A police officer came to the door and lured Mendez out of his house with a story of a hit and run report. Once outside, he had M16s pointed within inches of his face, was taken into custody and had all weapons removed from his house.

It is important to remember that these were legally- purchased and registered firearms. That gets to the other issue about this initiative.

 

[The Rabbi]

If that pool is in the ground or built into the deck as a permanent fixture of the property, yes they're required to have homeowners insurance that covers the pool. At least they do in my state.

A ladder and a pool are meant for different uses than to kill or injure. If you use a pool or a ladder correctly no one is hurt. If you use a gun correctly someone or something is either killed or injured.

Which is why our society treats guns differently from pools and ladders.

Just because someone somewhere might push someone into a pool on purpose doesn't mean that background checks aren't needed.

If shooting someone is an intentional act then why are there so many accidental shootings? There are countless stories of a gun that "just went off." I guess all those people who said that were lying.

Your biggest problem with me is that I'm not looking to take any any gun from law abiding citizens.

.

Oy I dont even know where to begin with all that crap.

For starters, what your state mandates ( and I hate to ask which one) is irrelevant. Generally in the US there is no requirement for insurance for even the most common death causing items.
Second, a gun is designed to shoot bullets. Iv'e owned like 100 guns through my life. Not one of them ever killled anyone while in my possession. You want to argue first the item is dangerous, then the person is dangerous. It is a failure. There are more dangerous items statistically speaking than guns. There are more dangerous persons than gun owners.
There are no accidental shootings. There are negligent shootings. But that isn't the topic here, which would seem to be how do we reduce intentional shootings by criminals. And nothing proposed so far would do that becaseu, ta da, criminals dont obey laws.

 

[Iceweasel]

California Begins Confiscating Legally-Purchased Guns

It is not surprising that the first police raids to take legally-purchased firearms from citizens are in California. Until recently, the state had the strictest gun control laws and the liberal run state government has always looked unfavorably on the Second Amendment.

Earlier this year, the state legislature expanded the list of what they call “prohibited persons” – people who have legally registered a firearm but, for various reasons, are no longer allowed their Second Amendment rights. These reasons were expanded to include people who are behind on state taxes, did not pay toll fees in a “timely” manner and a wide range of other minor misdemeanors or reported mental health concerns.

In preparation for the crackdown, the state authorized $24 million to hire additional officers to track down 20,000 people on the list. One person on this list was Joe Mendez.

A police officer came to the door and lured Mendez out of his house with a story of a hit and run report. Once outside, he had M16s pointed within inches of his face, was taken into custody and had all weapons removed from his house.

It is important to remember that these were legally- purchased and registered firearms. That gets to the other issue about this initiative.

Jesus Christ. I am so happy I moved out of that bubble universe 30 years ago.

 

[jon_berzerk]

California Begins Confiscating Legally-Purchased Guns

It is not surprising that the first police raids to take legally-purchased firearms from citizens are in California. Until recently, the state had the strictest gun control laws and the liberal run state government has always looked unfavorably on the Second Amendment.

Earlier this year, the state legislature expanded the list of what they call “prohibited persons” – people who have legally registered a firearm but, for various reasons, are no longer allowed their Second Amendment rights. These reasons were expanded to include people who are behind on state taxes, did not pay toll fees in a “timely” manner and a wide range of other minor misdemeanors or reported mental health concerns.

In preparation for the crackdown, the state authorized $24 million to hire additional officers to track down 20,000 people on the list. One person on this list was Joe Mendez.

A police officer came to the door and lured Mendez out of his house with a story of a hit and run report. Once outside, he had M16s pointed within inches of his face, was taken into custody and had all weapons removed from his house.

It is important to remember that these were legally- purchased and registered firearms. That gets to the other issue about this initiative.

Jesus Christ. I am so happy I moved out of that bubble universe 30 years ago.

glad i never moved there

 

[The Rabbi]

If that pool is in the ground or built into the deck as a permanent fixture of the property, yes they're required to have homeowners insurance that covers the pool. At least they do in my state.

A ladder and a pool are meant for different uses than to kill or injure. If you use a pool or a ladder correctly no one is hurt. If you use a gun correctly someone or something is either killed or injured.

Which is why our society treats guns differently from pools and ladders.

Just because someone somewhere might push someone into a pool on purpose doesn't mean that background checks aren't needed.

If shooting someone is an intentional act then why are there so many accidental shootings? There are countless stories of a gun that "just went off." I guess all those people who said that were lying.

Your biggest problem with me is that I'm not looking to take any any gun from law abiding citizens.

I grew up with them. My mom's family hunted. My dad started hunting when he met my mom. My dad used to hunt all the time with my grandfather. My dad's guns were in the garage all my life. It wasn't a big deal at all to anyone. My aunt used to sit on her back porch, waiting for the right size deer to walk by. Then BLAMO! They had venison in the freezer. My uncle used to give my cousins guns for christmas. I own a house on the south side of Mt. Rainier. There's elk everywhere. The population is out of control since their natural predator is no longer around to eat them. So during hunting season it's normal to see something dead on the hood of a car or on the bed of a truck. I have no problem with that. If there's too many elk then all of them will starve and do a lot of damage to the surrounding area.

I personally don't own guns and don't want to own a gun. Nor do I want one in my home or to enter a home that has one.

That doesn't mean I want to take any guns from anyone who is a law abiding citizen. Nor does it mean that law will take any guns from any law abiding citizen.

I'm like 86% of the people in our nation. We just want to close a loophole in the background check law.

I also would like to see mandatory insurance for all who own a gun to cover any injuries or death to innocent people that's caused by that gun.

There are two glaring errors as I bolded above.

I have no guns that have killed or injured a person. I have some guns that have killed animals, I have many guns that have not killed anything or anyone. Are you telling me the guns I use for target shooting are not being used correctly. I beg to differ with you I damn sure use all my guns correctly and handle them safely

As to number two, there is no loophole in the BGC law, that is a liberal myth. The only transfers exempt from BGC are private transfer because by law they are not required. No loophole there


Can you point to anything that BGC would solve? The shooting as at the theater in CO, Sandy Hook, Isla Vista, CA all involved legally purchased weapons where the purchaser under went a BGC

I don't know where you live but there is no background check required to purchase a gun at a gun show in Washington. The link below will so you the states that do.

Gun Show Background Checks State Laws

Look at Washington. It's bright red because we don't require background checks at gun shows. This law will close that loophole and close the one for private sales.

If you read my post carefully I clearly said "someone or SOMETHING." You used your gun property and that target was destroyed. That's something. Not a someone.

All the whining and moaning from the right is just another smoke screen.

Purchases at stores have been required to have that background check for many years. No one has taken any gun from any law abiding citizen.

Why don't you want the people of Washington to be able to vote to have background checks? Do you have any good reason? Or is your excuse that the law does nothing?

If you don't believe that this law will do anything what's your problem?

We have to repeat this again sloowwwly:
THERE IS NO GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE.
It is simply the law that a person can sell his personal property unobstructed. When someone sells his car is he required to verify that the buyer has a valid DL? Or that he is a US citizen?
You're concerned that people shoot cardboard targets? Seriously?

All the whining and pissing from the left is just a smokescreen. It is a forerunner to start banning and confiscating guns. This is exactly what is happening in NY for example.

 

[The Rabbi]

i am not talking about lawful gun owners not complying with a registration law

i am talking about the felons

the FELON is not required to comply with registration laws

he can not be busted for failing to register a firearm

according to Haynes v. United States

the court ruled that registration only applies to persons who could lawfully own a firearm

So, can't he be busted for unlawfully owning a firearm???

yes of course

but he can already be busted for that without registration laws

so what is the point

Not exactly.
He can be busted for being a felon in possession. He cannot be busted for failing to register his firearm because that would run afoul of his 5A rights.
We had a similar case here where the state imposed a narcotics tax. Anyone dealing in illegal narcotics had to buy a tax stamp or something. It was thrown out because buying the stamp was admission of guilt, which violated the 5A.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Really? How many gun safes have you been able to burglarize? But, the point is a gun stored in a gun safe is much is more difficult to steal or be played with by a child, than a gun kept in the night stand.

So we see again one more poster so in love with his gun(s) s/he cannot see outside the box. And one more reason why gun owners ought to be culpable civilly, and maybe criminally in egregious cases, for being irresponsible when their gun harms others.

Many gun safes could simply be TAKEN, rather than broken into....two big guys just grab the whole damn thing, toss it into a van, bring it someplace, and open it at their leisure. Mine would be tough to steal (secured to a beam by 4 very large bolts with the nuts welded), my uncle's much tougher (set in concrete & much larger), but both could be stolen by two determined guys.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I would also require insurance for that gun. Everyone who owns a gun should have to take out insurance to cover any damage or death caused by that gun.

Most gun owners have it.

 

[The Rabbi]

I would also require insurance for that gun. Everyone who owns a gun should have to take out insurance to cover any damage or death caused by that gun.

Most gun owners have it.

How? You cannot buy insurance to cover an intentional act. You can buy insurance to cover theft or loss of the gun's value. But that's not liability coverage, which is what Dana is talking about.
But what good is requiring such coverage anyway? Thugs wont bother to buy it and honest people probably dont need it.

 

[Ropey]

If you support imposing universal background checks on all gun sales, whether through a dealer or not, I have a question for you.

Say I meet up with Turtledude; he and I buy a gun off each other, get a beer, and go home.

How does the government prove that background checks were not run before we sold the guns?

Because they will legislate it and require proofs.

If you don't have the proofs when or if you're checked out... well you get it.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Which is why a seller of at least average intelligence ought to secure the buyers name on a BoS, signed and dated by the buyer; and, secure a background check (even thought they may be inadequite as your examples suggest).

Much safer to simply make sure the buyer DOES NOT KNOW anything about the seller. First names only, meet at a neutral location, cash transaction, contact only through a throwaway cell phone or a Gmail account accessed only from public terminals. Maybe even use a rented car or U-Haul truck, so the buyer can't even know what STATE I live in.

Haven't sold any guns lately (last one I did was to a dealer), but if I do, that's my plan. Hey, name's Thomas, just call me TJ...I'll meet you in the parking lot of the BJ's Wholesale in Portland, Maine. I'm in a black Dodge Caravan.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Not with the facts as you present them. Of course I dealt with the issue above when I wrote about those who think they are smarter than everyone else. I'll post a scenario which you won't consider, but others will:

TD brings the gun home and hides it from his SO, who is afraid of guns and doesn't want one in their home. Two weeks later she finds the gun hidden in TD's closet and has a fit.

One thing leads to another and the argument is loud enough to alarm the neighbor who calls the police. When the police arrive and see the gun on the bed where it had been placed, they immediately cuff both TD and his SO and secure the weapon.

The officer asked the SO what happened and she reported how she found the gun and when she showed it to him he grabbed her arm, causing a red mark and a scratch.

The officers then arrested TD for domestic Violence. The gun was checked into evidence and the tech routinely ran the serial number; it came back as stolen. TD was then charged with Possession of Stolen Property as well as DV, and when interviewed by the investigators told them he had recently purchased the gun from M14.

Yep, and here's the description: "Bought it from a guy on Craigslist...name's Thomas, went by TJ. Never got his last name. He's stocky white guy with glasses; we met in a BJ's parking lot in Portland. Dude had dark hair, wore a red Patriots hat, gray T-shirt, glasses, jeans, and boots. Had a faint Southern drawl. Drove a black minivan...don't recall the plate. Didn't look local, though." Good luck making anything of THAT.

 

[The Rabbi]

If you support imposing universal background checks on all gun sales, whether through a dealer or not, I have a question for you.

Say I meet up with Turtledude; he and I buy a gun off each other, get a beer, and go home.

How does the government prove that background checks were not run before we sold the guns?

Because they will legislate it and require proofs.

If you don't have the proofs when or if you're checked out... well you get it.

Again, you would have to prove you acquired the gun after UBCs were mandated. And good luck with that.
It also puts the burden of proof on the gun owner, which is not how criminal law works.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you support imposing universal background checks on all gun sales, whether through a dealer or not, I have a question for you.

Say I meet up with Turtledude; he and I buy a gun off each other, get a beer, and go home.

How does the government prove that background checks were not run before we sold the guns?

Because they will legislate it and require proofs.
If you don't have the proofs when or if you're checked out... well you get it.

How does the stqate prove the sale was made?
How does the state porve either of us ever owned the guns we sold?
How does the state prove the guns were sold after the BGC was required?