View Full Version : backround check
milwaukeeshaker
09-11-2013, 18:08
Do you think the hoplophobes would still think the universal backround check is a good idea if the requirement to record the serial number, and make of the gun were removed from the check? Has anyone proposed this idea? I for one am not afraid of backround checks, but am quite sure these are for backdoor gun registration. There is no reason to find out the backround of the firearm.
That would ruin the whole reason why they want background checks in the first place.. It's one step closer to full registration.
Aloha_Shooter
09-11-2013, 18:26
Why compromise? I resent being told I have to pay for a background check in order to return a rifle to a US soldier after she completes her tour of duty overseas despite knowing her husband for over a decade and despite the fact they both undergo periodic background checks already (and more rigorous ones than CBI or NICS do). I resent the idea that I should have to do background checks in order to loan a friend some rifles in order to conduct training for our Boy Scout classes. In short, I resent stupid useless laws that don't do anything positive and will not compromise my position in order to make some stupid granola-eating empathetic hoplophobic idiot "feel better".
hurley842002
09-11-2013, 18:36
Why compromise? I resent being told I have to pay for a background check in order to return a rifle to a US soldier after she completes her tour of duty overseas despite knowing her husband for over a decade and despite the fact they both undergo periodic background checks already (and more rigorous ones than CBI or NICS do). I resent the idea that I should have to do background checks in order to loan a friend some rifles in order to conduct training for our Boy Scout classes. In short, I resent stupid useless laws that don't do anything positive and will not compromise my position in order to make some stupid granola-eating empathetic hoplophobic idiot "feel better".
Well said!
No compromise PERIOD!
Zundfolge
09-11-2013, 18:38
I agree, no compromise.
I suspect that the "compromise" we will be offered in a couple years is a means of getting around the annoying BGC for private purchases will be an FOID card. To that I say FUCK THAT NOISE.
We need to fight to get the universal BGC law repealed, not give those bastards a victory by just nibbling around the edges of it.
milwaukeeshaker
09-11-2013, 18:46
I agree, no compromise! I do NOT like BGC's at all! All gun laws are unconstitutional. I'm just really surprised someone in the forefront of the pro-gun movement has not pinned one of the anti's down on film by proposing that no gun numbers should be required just in order to get the response of the anti's recorded for all to see. That would show their true colors, and intent.
BPTactical
09-11-2013, 19:27
We have drawn a line in this state.
Thou shalt not pass.
Bailey Guns
09-11-2013, 19:35
Do you think the hoplophobes would still think the universal backround check is a good idea if the requirement to record the serial number, and make of the gun were removed from the check? Has anyone proposed this idea? I for one am not afraid of backround checks, but am quite sure these are for backdoor gun registration. There is no reason to find out the backround of the firearm.
Why would someone want to propose something that's already done?
Firearm serial numbers are not part of either the CBI or NICS checks. Serial numbers are recorded on the 4473...they are not provided with background check info.
Why would someone want to propose something that's already done?
Firearm serial numbers are not part of either the CBI or NICS checks. Serial numbers are recorded on the 4473...they are not provided with background check info.
Perhaps the question should have been.. "Why don't we go for background checks and do away with the 4473?" :D Seeing that the 4473 eventually becomes part of the national registry once the FFL closes shop and turns in their records.
milwaukeeshaker
09-11-2013, 20:18
Yes this. I haven't had a background check or filled out any forms for over ten years. I could not remember the process. I just knew somewhere the gun serial and make were recorded.
Perhaps the question should have been.. "Why don't we go for background checks and do away with the 4473?" :D Seeing that the 4473 eventually becomes part of the national registry once the FFL closes shop and turns in their records.
I suspect that the "compromise" we will be offered in a couple years is a means of getting around the annoying BGC for private purchases will be an FOID card.
Anyone found in possession of any firearm or even ammunition who does not also have a valid FOID card is guilty of a felony in Illinois.
spqrzilla
09-11-2013, 22:13
milwaukeeshaker,
You don't understand that the falsely named "universal background check" bills criminalize a lot of innocent conduct. That's the issue.
If I'm keeping a firearm for a military service person while deployed, and we're supposed to do a BGC before I give that person his/her weapon back? Um, yeah.....not. Someone can KMA.
ChunkyMonkey
09-11-2013, 23:11
We have drawn a line in this state.
Thou shalt not pass.
I dunno man.. the line is pretty far back. We may have stunned them. They'll keep on pushing unfortunately.
milwaukeeshaker
09-12-2013, 09:22
Yes I do understand, and DO NOT support ANY gun laws. What I was trying to say is I wonder if the a--wipes who want these wonderful backround checks would still want them if there was NO gun information collected???
milwaukeeshaker,
You don't understand that the falsely named "universal background check" bills criminalize a lot of innocent conduct. That's the issue.
Yes I do understand, and DO NOT support ANY gun laws. What I was trying to say is I wonder if the a--wipes who want these wonderful backround checks would still want them if there was NO gun information collected???
Taking the reasons they gave for passage at face value they should be perfectly happy with no firearm information. We know that wasn't the whole story but the reasons used to sell it to the public would not care about information on the guns, only the buyers.
Zundfolge
09-12-2013, 09:57
Yes I do understand, and DO NOT support ANY gun laws. What I was trying to say is I wonder if the a--wipes who want these wonderful backround checks would still want them if there was NO gun information collected???
Yes, yes they would. I bet 99% of them don't know that there is gun info collected and nor do they care.
The ONLY purpose for the universal background check is to add one more layer of annoyance to the entire process of buying and owning guns so that they can discourage as many people as possible from buying and owning guns because the more people buy and own guns, the more people are likely to take an interest in the politics of guns (and the more likely they are to become anti Democrat on other issues).
These people would gleefully push for a law requiring all gun purchasers to tap dance while juggling oranges and singing the Catalina Magdalena Hoopensteiner Wallabeiner Song before they could purchase a gun because they're hateful, spiteful, evil people that simply want to use the machinations of the state to vex, annoy and inconvenience people they hate merely for having a difference of opinion.
As Justin once said; [the new gun laws] are merely counting coup in the culture wars.
milwaukeeshaker
09-12-2013, 10:09
How true. Thanks gentlemen, I appreciate the sharing of the perspectives. Unfortunately using this law on a private sale also serves to put non-papered guns back to papered status for future confiscation. I also think that was another reason for the universal BGC.
Yes, yes they would. I bet 99% of them don't know that there is gun info collected and nor do they care.
The ONLY purpose for the universal background check is to add one more layer of annoyance to the entire process of buying and owning guns so that they can discourage as many people as possible from buying and owning guns because the more people buy and own guns, the more people are likely to take an interest in the politics of guns (and the more likely they are to become anti Democrat on other issues).
These people would gleefully push for a law requiring all gun purchasers to tap dance while juggling oranges and singing the Catalina Magdalena Hoopensteiner Wallabeiner Song before they could purchase a gun because they're hateful, spiteful, evil people that simply want to use the machinations of the state to vex, annoy and inconvenience people they hate merely for having a difference of opinion.
As Justin once said; [the new gun laws] are merely counting coup in the culture wars.
BPTactical
09-12-2013, 10:34
How true. Thanks gentlemen, I appreciate the sharing of the perspectives. Unfortunately using this law on a private sale also serves to put non-papered guns back to papered status for future confiscation. I also think that was another reason for the universal BGC.
Didn't you get the memo?
"Its for the Children"
milwaukeeshaker
09-12-2013, 10:47
Nah. I seemed to have missed that one. The libs use it so frequently on everthing, I've come to ignore the B.S. unless I step in it.
BPTactical
09-12-2013, 11:09
Cmon buddy, get a glove and get in the game!
StagLefty
09-12-2013, 11:50
"the Catalina Magdalena Hoopensteiner Wallabeiner Song"
Zundfolge-could you hum a few bars of that ?[hahhah-no]
BGC does not apply to any firearm over 50 years old. Curios, relics, and antiques are specifically exempted.
One of the proposals I've put forward in lieu of background checks would be this:
1.) If you're a prohibited person, your driver's license/state ID is conspicuously marked in such a way as to show that you're not allowed to have a gun.
2.) Make it a legal requirement that in all F2F transactions, the seller must check the buyer's ID for that mark. No mark? Good to go. Didn't check, or sold a gun to a person with a marked ID, and you get caught? Go to jail.
Such a system would be much faster, cheaper, and more equitable than forcing everyone to go through a centralized background check process. Additionally, it would work to empower gun owners to act as the first line of defense in keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them.
But, since BGCs aren't about preventing crime, you'd never see such a system get any sort of traction.
One of the proposals I've put forward in lieu of background checks would be this: 1.) If you're a prohibited person, your driver's license/state ID is conspicuously marked in such a way as to show that you're not allowed to have a gun.
And everyone that ever sees your ID now knows there is something wrong with you. I have yet to see a good way to do that that doesnt morph into a gun license or violate privacy.
The privacy violation you mention would be an issue. Certainly it's not a silver bullet, but I'd rather deal with that sort of system than BGCs.
In any event, using that proposal has won me points when arguing with people who retort with "You're against background checks because you want to arm criminals and lunatics!"
Zundfolge
09-12-2013, 22:03
Justin's idea is better than BGCs because it burdens the criminals, not the law abiding ... but as he said these laws aren't about preventing crime, they're about vexing the law abiding.
Just had an idea ... put the "Prohibited Person" endorsement on the BACK of their license. Then they're not showing everyone at their bank, liquor store, etc that they're a prohibited person.
If you're not in jail, you shouldn't be a "prohibited person", period. Last time I read the second amendment it didn't say "..., except for felons." at the end. Buy that first abridgement, and you have no principle on which to argue against any other restrictions.
O2
spqrzilla
09-13-2013, 17:14
Felony convictions and convictions of misdemeanors of domestic violence are what make one a prohibited person. And those are public record, they can be discovered for less than ten bucks, there is no "privacy" issue.
Felony convictions and convictions of misdemeanors of domestic violence are what make one a prohibited person. And those are public record, they can be discovered for less than ten bucks, there is no "privacy" issue.
There is a difference between someone searching out your specific records and having a giant red F on your ID.
Felony convictions and convictions of misdemeanors of domestic violence are what make one a prohibited person. And those are public record, they can be discovered for less than ten bucks, there is no "privacy" issue.
Actually, there are about a dozen other categories as well. Anyone with a MMJ card, for example. Technically, members of AA or NA as well. A lot of hair splitting also has been proposed on how to define "mentally ill." Currently, I think it only applies to those who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent, but some legislators have tried to push for laws stripping veterans with PTSD, or anyone on medication for anxiety or depression, from owning a firearm. Recently a court ruled that someone who simply had a family member assigned to handle their finances was not a "prohibited person."
spqrzilla
09-13-2013, 20:17
If a record is public, you can't claim that its private. That's the bottom line.
If a record is public, you can't claim that its private. That's the bottom line.
Lets just tattoo a F on every felon's forehead then.
Your public record is not displayed to all & sundry in everyday interaction, at least until google glass really gets going.
BlasterBob
09-14-2013, 08:48
I have yet to see one really good, valid reason why an individual can NOT just call the CBI and request a BGC on a potential buyer. Yes, we are told that this action cannot be accomplished, but why not? Doesn't seem that would amount to any more phone calls than to have the FFL making those calls.Guess we, the tax payers can't be trusted so have to hire someone else to initiate those phone calls for us. [Mad]
brokenscout
09-14-2013, 09:16
So can we have the store do the BGC and then just transfer the firearm myself?
BlasterBob
09-14-2013, 14:23
So can we have the store do the BGC and then just transfer the firearm myself?
I would say YES, as long as the FFL agrees, you pay him/her for the BGC and they give you the papers showing that a BGC was actually made and of course, the buyers passed the BGC. By CO law, they (the FFL's) are required to furnish such a paper to both seller and buyer. The law does not specifically indicate that a transfer MUST be made, only that the BGC be made prior to the transfers. Of course, the necessity of a BGC will not apply to C&R transfers.. Anyone not agreeing, just read the new bull crap law.
Bailey Guns
09-14-2013, 14:52
Ya know, I don't give a big fat rat's ass if it inconveniences a convicted felon. BFD. Don't like it, don't do the crime or go through the steps to attempt to restore your rights. There are other categories of "prohibited persons" I don't agree with...mostly those who were punished for a domestic violence offense from before the time the Lautenberg Amendment went into effect.
I agree the system is broken. But right now it punishes the law-abiding more than anyone else.
BlasterBob
09-14-2013, 15:35
Apparently a Veteran had better not admit to his/her VA Doc while making an office visit, that they are depressed because then their firearm possessing rights MAY very possibly be forfeited. [Mad]
Zundfolge
09-14-2013, 19:14
Apparently a Veteran had better not admit to his/her VA Doc while making an office visit, that they are depressed because then their firearm possessing rights MAY very possibly be forfeited. [Mad]
The simple fact is that once Obama Care is implemented (and probably even before then) you don't admit to anyone that you're feeling depressed or frustrated or angry, and you never seek help for anything even remotely psychological unless you're willing to give up your 2A rights ... veteran or not.
Want to keep your guns, you just have to suffer.
brokenscout
09-14-2013, 19:15
This should be fun, the VA better start building prisons ,while there at it.
Apparently a Veteran had better not admit to his/her VA Doc while making an office visit, that they are depressed because then their firearm possessing rights MAY very possibly be forfeited. [Mad]
If you're not in jail, you shouldn't be a "prohibited person", period. Last time I read the second amendment it didn't say "..., except for felons." at the end. Buy that first abridgement, and you have no principle on which to argue against any other restrictions.
O2
Are there unicorns in your world, too?
Are there unicorns in your world, too?
Nope, just a constitution that must be taken as a whole, not cherry-picked from.
Obviously you think that ex-felons shouldn't have guns. Could you point to the constitutional clause that supports such an assertion?
Because there's no difference between that position and the claim that the second amendment only covers muskets, to quote Piers Morgan.
O2
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.