Want universal background checks? A question....

[LoneLaugher]

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?

A better question is what will happen if the state discovers you're in violation of the law.


In Colorado, for example:


"A violation of the new background check law is a class 1 misdemeanor, which is punishable by six to 18 months imprisonment, a $500 to $5,000 fine, or both (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-501). Additionally, a person violating the law is prohibited from possessing a firearm for two years. The state court administrator must report any conviction related to such violation to the Bureau and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (see below)."


SUMMARY OF COLORADO S NEW GUN CONTROL LAWS


Your at liberty to violate the law, of course, and it's quite likely the illegal transfer will never be discovered by the state.


But it can be argued that if one is a responsible gun owner, part of being responsible is obeying the gun laws in his jurisdiction, regardless the contempt he might hold for such laws.


And that laws are poorly conceived, impossible to enforce, or fail to realize the desire effect, is not justification to ignore or violate such laws.

at what point should gun owners say enough is enough?

If you mean....."enough is enough" when it comes to bullshit about anyone wanting to take their guns.....I am wondering the same thing.

 

[Noomi]

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?

You should be made to buy through a registered dealer. I dunno, make dealers register with the government so that the gov is aware of who buys what and when and where.

 

[Noomi]

at what point should gun owners say enough is enough?

When gun owners listen to the parents of the victims of mass shootings and answer their question - how many innocent people have to die before something is done?

 

[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?

You should be made to buy through a registered dealer. I dunno, make dealers register with the government so that the gov is aware of who buys what and when and where.

Well that's the idea. Of course it's a failure. If I'm a criminal and I stole this gun, and the guy I'm selling it to is also a criminal, then we're obviously not going to go through a background check.
If we are both law abiding people, what's the background check going to do?

 

[The Rabbi]

at what point should gun owners say enough is enough?

When gun owners listen to the parents of the victims of mass shootings and answer their question - how many innocent people have to die before something is done?

And the question back is, What do you propose to do that would have prevented this incident?
And the answer is nothing. Adam Lanza didnt go through a backgroud check to get his guns because he stole them after killing his mother. He probably could have successfully passed one btw.
There is no background check that can predict what someone will do next week, next month, next year. And we dont strip people of rights because they might do something later on.

 

[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?

By showing that one or both of you could not have passed a properly run background check.

How does that prove anything?

Well, assuming that one of you was not eligible to buy a gun, it proves, or at least makes the case, that either a background check was not run, or that the background check was ignored.

How do you know when the gun was sold?
How do you know who sold it?
What if we were both eligible to buy a gun?

 

[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?

A better question is what will happen if the state discovers you're in violation of the law.

So... you don't have an answer to the question. Thank you.

 

[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?

You should be made to buy through a registered dealer. I dunno, make dealers register with the government so that the gov is aware of who buys what and when and where.

1: You didn't answer the question
2: How do you prove the guns were sold at a point in time where the requirement was in place?
3: Gun dealers are already registered with the government -- please don't be so ignorant.

 

[M14 Shooter]

at what point should gun owners say enough is enough?

When gun owners listen to the parents of the victims of mass shootings and answer their question - how many innocent people have to die before something is done?

When a statistically significant number of guns are used to commit murder. Maybe.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

When Turtledude goes onto the local Jr. College and shoots and kills dozens the investigation may very well lead to you. Then, you ought to be complicit and put in prison. And, since you had a duty to perform the background checks and did not do so, and harm was caused, you will lose everything you own, home, car and all of your guns.

Now, it may be hard to prove "beyond a resonable doubt" and put you in prison (where you belong), but the standard of proof in a civil suit is much lower, and everyone effected by your irresponsible behavior will sue your ass. Attorney fees alone will put you in the poor house.

 

[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?

When Turtledude goes onto the local Jr. College and shoots and kills dozens the investigation may very well lead to you.

How? Why?
Please also note that you did not answer the question.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

When Turtledude goes onto the local Jr. College and shoots and kills dozens the investigation may very well lead to you.

How? Why?
Please also note that you did not answer the question.

When more than one person shares a secret, it is not a secret. Investigators, expecially in the scenario I posted (where there will be many, checking and crosschecking each other) will turn over every rock, check every record, interview every person who may know something.

Don't kid yourself, crooks who think their smarter than everyone else are the easiest to crack.

 

[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?

When Turtledude goes onto the local Jr. College and shoots and kills dozens the investigation may very well lead to you.

How? Why?
Please also note that you did not answer the question.

When more than one person shares a secret, it is not a secret. Investigators, expecially in the scenario I posted (where there will be many, checking and crosschecking each other) will turn over every rock, check every record, interview every person who may know something.

Don't kid yourself, crooks who think their smarter than everyone else are the easiest to crack.

I'm unclear what this scenario is supposed to be.
The FFLs who sold guns to some of the high profile killers recently did so legally and had no repercussions because the background check came back OK. Why dont people sue the government for approving these transfers?

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

When Turtledude goes onto the local Jr. College and shoots and kills dozens the investigation may very well lead to you.

How? Why?
Please also note that you did not answer the question.

When more than one person shares a secret, it is not a secret. Investigators, expecially in the scenario I posted (where there will be many, checking and crosschecking each other) will turn over every rock, check every record, interview every person who may know something.

Don't kid yourself, crooks who think their smarter than everyone else are the easiest to crack.

I'm unclear what this scenario is supposed to be.
The FFLs who sold guns to some of the high profile killers recently did so legally and had no repercussions because the background check came back OK. Why dont people sue the government for approving these transfers?

"did so legally" vis a vis did so illegally. See the difference?

 

[ricechickie]

You don't understand the premise here.

We -didn't- run a background chreck on each other, which violates the supposed law.
How does the state prove this?

My idea is that you both go to a police department and do the transaction there. They provide background check, give you both receipts.

Keep the receipt like you would any other important document. If you're asked to produce it, and can't, they assume the background check wasn't done. You get a ticket or whatever, until one or both of you go back to place of the original check, and produce a record. Hopefully, they can find what you didn't bother to keep around.

 

[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?

When Turtledude goes onto the local Jr. College and shoots and kills dozens the investigation may very well lead to you.

How? Why?
Please also note that you did not answer the question.

When more than one person shares a secret, it is not a secret. Investigators, expecially in the scenario I posted (where there will be many, checking and crosschecking each other) will turn over every rock, check every record, interview every person who may know something.

Don't kid yourself, crooks who think their smarter than everyone else are the easiest to crack.

I'm unclear what this scenario is supposed to be.
The FFLs who sold guns to some of the high profile killers recently did so legally and had no repercussions because the background check came back OK. Why dont people sue the government for approving these transfers?

"did so legally" vis a vis did so illegally. See the difference?

I see that you're illiterate as well as stupid.
What dealer does a transfer illegally? It doesnt happen basically.

 

[The Rabbi]

You don't understand the premise here.

We -didn't- run a background chreck on each other, which violates the supposed law.
How does the state prove this?

My idea is that you both go to a police department and do the transaction there. They provide background check, give you both receipts.

Keep the receipt like you would any other important document. If you're asked to produce it, and can't, they assume the background check wasn't done. You get a ticket or whatever, until one or both of you go back to place of the original check, and produce a record. Hopefully, they can find what you didn't bother to keep around.

That's a fail as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. They would have to show you didnt go through the check.
Of course if you're having the PD do it, then they ought to have the record, much as firearms dealers now keep records of every transaction.
What about the guy who steals guns and then sells it to the guy who deals dope? What are you going to do to prevent that?

 

[OriginalShroom]

What I want to know is why should I have to submit to a background check in order to exercise one of my Constitutionally enumerated Rights that specifically says it "Shall Not be Infringed"?

 

[ricechickie]

That's a fail as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. They would have to show you didnt go through the check.
Of course if you're having the PD do it, then they ought to have the record, much as firearms dealers now keep records of every transaction.
What about the guy who steals guns and then sells it to the guy who deals dope? What are you going to do to prevent that?

Nothing can prevent 100% of lawbreakers.

But with this system, both parties must go to the PD to do the background check and have it entered into record. If it's not done, then there are two people who are breaking the law. Now, in your scenario, both of them are criminals, anyway. But for law-abiding gun owners, if a potential buyer is unwilling to go through a background check, then that might tell them something.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's a fail as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. They would have to show you didnt go through the check.
Of course if you're having the PD do it, then they ought to have the record, much as firearms dealers now keep records of every transaction.
What about the guy who steals guns and then sells it to the guy who deals dope? What are you going to do to prevent that?

Nothing can prevent 100% of lawbreakers.

But with this system, both parties must go to the PD to do the background check and have it entered into record. If it's not done, then there are two people who are breaking the law. Now, in your scenario, both of them are criminals, anyway. But for law-abiding gun owners, if a potential buyer is unwilling to go through a background check, then that might tell them something.

It's not going to prevent anything. If the person has a criminal record but is not really a criminal (and that happens all the time) then they werent going to commit a crime anyway.
If they are criminal then they'll buy from someone willing to go around the background check anyway.
If they're honest citizens then they aren't criminals.

This isnt rocket science. Laws dont affect criminals. Period.