House Passes Gun-Control Bill Expanding Background Checks on Firearm Sales

[kbaxter60]

He'd have to check/circle back with piglosi on that first ...

I can paraphrase for those who can't tune it:
"I have not had enough time; I am new here. I am fully focused on Covid. I will get to other pressing, urgent issues later, so stop asking about them. Immigration is Trump's fault. Am I talking too long? Is it too much detail for you simpletons? Did I mention it's Trump's fault?" Blah, blah, blah.

 

[lightflyer1]

You forgot "And there will be responses" (N. Korea) and "I will commit to transparency, and — as soon as I am in a position to be able to implement what we are doing right now." (letting reporters and others into holding areas to see conditions).

 

[Coop45]

He'd have to check/circle back with piglosi on that first ...

Easy on the pigs. They are very smart. don't you remember Arnold on Green Acres?

 

[superchief]

The only way to enforce this crap is registration. Otherwise, how do you figure out when the transfer took place?

 

[Axxe55]

The only way to enforce this crap is registration. Otherwise, how do you figure out when the transfer took place?

Registration assumes that gun owners would be in compliance.

I will never comply with any registration.

 

[majormadmax]

It's been tried. The Texas response was...

 

[benenglish]

The only way to enforce this crap is registration.

No. That's not the case.

I'm on record as stating that I could support a properly structured universal background check law.

Universal background checks and registration can be divorced from each other.

Even makes-the-evening-news enforcement to satisfy the progressives need not impact law-abiding gun owners.

Hell, if we're politically smart about it, we could turn universal background checks into a net win for gun rights.

Unfortunately, the instant legislation does none of this. Pro-2A folks should get out in front of this issue instead of just being obstructionist. We could make it a winner for us.

 

[Renegade]

The only way to enforce this crap is registration. Otherwise, how do you figure out when the transfer took place?

it will be enforced via fear of going to jail vs paying $25 for an ffl xfer. Few will risk that. Just like nobody walks around a gun show offering illegal machine guns ftf.

 

[Renegade]

No. That's not the case.

I'm on record as stating that I could support a properly structured universal background check law.

Universal background checks and registration can be divorced from each other.

Even makes-the-evening-news enforcement to satisfy the progressives need not impact law-abiding gun owners.

Hell, if we're politically smart about it, we could turn universal background checks into a net win for gun rights.

Unfortunately, the instant legislation does none of this. Pro-2A folks should get out in front of this issue instead of just being obstructionist. We could make it a winner for us.

posts like this is why I no longer fight gun control, and why we can’t get so much of our agenda.

How in the world can you expect constitutional carry to be passed when some gun owners do not think you should be allowed to own a gun in their home without gov permission....

no personal attack intended, you have your view I have mine. Would love to see the rest of the pro gun control gun owners have the same courage and come forward.

 

[bbbass]

UBC IS registration.... By stealth, over a period of time.

When Oregon enacted statewide UBC, the law said that records of checks (with firearm serial #) could NOT be kept. They were to immediately be erased from the system upon completion of the check, and no paper trail of the check (with firearm serial #) could be kept. Then the Great Goddess in Salem gave them permission to keep paperwork on record, and to retain the record for six months, later changed by Legislature to 5yrs. Problem is, who is going to check after 5yrs to ensure that they have removed the info from the system and the paperwork destroyed? Answer: NOBODY! They did not provide for that within the law.

Over the years, such retention of UBC records (with firearm serial #) creates a database that could easily be searched. Ie, REGISTRATION. Not of all firearms, but of way too many!!!

 

[andre3k]

it will be enforced via fear of going to jail vs paying $25 for an ffl xfer. Few will risk that. Just like nobody walks around a gun show offering illegal machine guns ftf.

Pretty good point. The "I will not comply" people aren't drilling 3rd holes in their AR.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[bbbass]

Next will come a national license/permit to purchase a firearm.... if UBC is common sense and reasonable restriction/requirement/regulation, shouldn't we use an even more complete (intrusive) check (possibly including interviews with spouse/relatives and requiring 4 references and passing a psych exam; for only a $400-$800 fee/tax) to determine who can buy a firearm in the first place? I mean, gun owners should certainly appreciate a positive permit system saying you CAN rather than one (background checks) that only provides negative results (DENIALS) and really doesn't always work due to incomplete info availability!

Then will come a permit to buy ammo.

 

[benenglish]

SMDH.

I'm away from home atm but I think I can help some of you understand why UBCs do not have to have any connection with firearms when I get back home to my desktop and don't have to type on my phone.

Or y'all could just read the links I provided.

 

[Sam Colt]

UBC IS registration.... By stealth, over a period of time.

When Oregon enacted statewide UBC, the law said that records of checks (with firearm serial #) could NOT be kept. They were to immediately be erased from the system upon completion of the check, and no paper trail of the check (with firearm serial #) could be kept. Then the Great Goddess in Salem gave them permission to keep paperwork on record, and to retain the record for six months, later changed by Legislature to 5yrs. Problem is, who is going to check after 5yrs to ensure that they have removed the info from the system and the paperwork destroyed? Answer: NOBODY! They did not provide for that within the law.

Over the years, such retention of UBC records (with firearm serial #) creates a database that could easily be searched. Ie, REGISTRATION. Not of all firearms, but of way too many!!!

That's specific to Oregon and a few other states that do their own checks. federal NICS does not ask for serial number.

 

[Renegade]

That's specific to Oregon and a few other states that do their own checks. federal NICS does not ask for serial number.

his point was it will. Just like ffls only had to keep 4473 for 5 years, then 10, now 20. And now the gun info is on front of 4473 making it easy to bull scan on an inspection.

 

[bbbass]

SMDH.

I'm away from home atm but I think I can help some of you understand why UBCs do not have to have any connection with firearms when I get back home to my desktop and don't have to type on my phone.

Or y'all could just read the links I provided.

I did. That's not what THEY are proposing, nor have they ever done such. And I don't believe that any opposition is going to negotiate anything diff, when their desire is clearly GUN CONTROL. They will NEVER allow UBC to be divorce/disconnected from firearms sales.

 

[bbbass]

That's specific to Oregon and a few other states that do their own checks. federal NICS does not ask for serial number.

Currently. What's a new law going to say?

 

[bbbass]

his point was it will. Just like ffls only had to keep 4473 for 5 years, then 10, now 20. And now the gun info is on front of 4473 making it easy to bull scan on an inspection.

'Zactly!!!

 

[benenglish]

some gun owners do not think you should be allowed to own a gun in their home without gov permission....

I didn't say that.

The government doesn't give me permission to own a gun. The government has, however, passed laws against some people buying guns. As long as we have those laws, I'm willing to say they should be obeyed. No one should sell a gun to a drug abuser or someone who has been adjudicated mentally defective, etc.

Do you consider that attitude unreasonable?

Would love to see the rest of the pro gun control gun owners have the same courage and come forward.

If you're putting me in that group you're making a mistake. Go back and read the links I provided.

I've consistently said that the government should pass some legislation, calling it a Universal Background Check, that would infringe LESS on the rights of gun owners than the current system. That would be a step in the right direction.

The ultimate goal (and I'm borrowing this from Vin Suprenowicz (sp?)) is that gun laws should be repealed until any 16-year-old girl can walk into Home Depot, plunk down cash, and walk out with a newly manufactured 1919 Browning, no questions asked, no paperwork required.

Until we get there, though, there are some productive interim steps we could take. We aren't.

 

[benenglish]

I did.

Cool. Then we have a common frame of reference.

That's not what THEY are proposing,

It never is.

nor have they ever done such.

So we agree. Again, cool.

I don't believe that any opposition is going to negotiate anything diff, when their desire is clearly GUN CONTROL.

Here we start to diverge. I agree about their desire. You've nailed that. However, I think progressives will negotiate anything that they think is in their own best (read: selfish) interests.

They will NEVER allow UBC to be divorce/disconnected from firearms sales.

That will be true as long as we stick to our principles, refuse to negotiate, and just spend our time shouting "Shall not be infringed!"

I suggest an alternative. We should play politics. We should give the progressives something they want. They want to be able to tell their base that they helped pass UBC. I've proposed a form of UBC that actually infringes LESS on gun rights than the current system. (BTW, while I thought this up all on my own, I've since discovered that it was a concept discussed over at ARFCOM long before it germinated in my brain.)

I don't think the progressives would hesitate to sell out their base if they could claim a victory in getting some form of UBC passed. I think that if a real conservative with some courage came forth and proposed a UBC like I outlined in those links you read, the progressives might sign on for purely political reasons, so they'd have a talking point, some fresh meat to throw to their base.

Look, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the progressives are so intent on control that they wouldn't take the opportunity to score points for short term political gain, to help them get re-elected. But, deep down, I don't think any of them cares about anything more than getting re-elected. I think they'd be willing to sign on if it were presented right.

Unfortunately, that's all somewhere in the future or maybe just in a fantasy. The current problem is stopping the kind of UBC that sparked this thread, the kind that the progressives will continue to throw at us until we finally wise up and give them an alternative that enhances the cause of 2A rights while simultaneously allowing them to save face.

Yeah, that would be a bitter pill but I'd be willing to swallow it if it helped secure the 2A from more attacks.