Significance of universal background checks and your privacy and protection.

[Jumpstart]

IMO this is THE most nefarious and overreaching of these guns grabs. It is a record, plain and simple, of gun ownership, no matter what anyone says. Two 15 rounders can be taped together and untapped as needed. An electronic record is forever and can be used to disarm citizenry. (Posting here is probably the same thing.....) This is the FIRST law that should be rescinded IMHO, I think it is an entire infringement of the 2nd. Thoughts?

[Clint45]

I think it is bullshit, but if they wanted to insist on a universal background check for handguns and semi-auto longarms I would not argue about it too much . . . however the primary issue is the nature of that check. Handing a gun to a friend? Leaving a gun at a relatives house? Requiring a check on yourself to get your own gun returned? Being labeled as a "gun trafficker" and facing prison over swapping hunting rifles with a coworker? That is outright Draconian and results in contempt for for the law, ridicule of the lawmakers, and fear of the government. If I need to buy and sell at an FFL from now on, so be it, but don't make people into criminals simply for trading, loaning, or gifting guns. You can even become a criminal for improper storage, apparently.

[Dingo]

The solution isn't requiring everybody to pass a background check. In an ideal world, the push would be toward providing incentives for people to arm themselves, creating a majority of gun-carrying citizenry. Then when some whackjob acts up, his actions are quickly and decisively quelled.

[Great-Kazoo]

I think it is bullshit, but if they wanted to insist on a universal background check for handguns and semi-auto longarms I would not argue about it too much . . . however the primary issue is the nature of that check. Handing a gun to a friend? Leaving a gun at a relatives house? Requiring a check on yourself to get your own gun returned? Being labeled as a "gun trafficker" and facing prison over swapping hunting rifles with a coworker? That is outright Draconian and results in contempt for for the law, ridicule of the lawmakers, and fear of the government. If I need to buy and sell at an FFL from now on, so be it, but don't make people into criminals simply for trading, loaning, or gifting guns. You can even become a criminal for improper storage, apparently.

You sir have no business owning any guns. YOU'RE OK / Not ARGUE TOO MUCH?? ANY COMPROMISING IS THE SAME AS CONFISCATION.


IMO this is THE most nefarious and overreaching of these guns grabs. It is a record, plain and simple, of gun ownership, no matter what anyone says. Two 15 rounders can be taped together and untapped as needed. An electronic record is forever and can be used to disarm citizenry. (Posting here is probably the same thing.....) This is the FIRST law that should be rescinded IMHO, I think it is an entire infringement of the 2nd. Thoughts?

I know you're a few decades late to being outraged. Then again with Clint45's attitude you need look no future to see why SENSIBLE / REASONABLE LAWS Have support of gun owners.
NOT ARGUE TOO MUCH There's a lot of the problem. EITHER YOU ARE for laws or you are not. NO WISHY WASHY THINKING M mmmmm Maybe i guess, FUK NO

[HBARleatherneck]

jim, what the hell is wrong with these people?

[10mm-man]

jim, what the hell is wrong with these people?

Sissy asses- sure Mr. Gun grabber I'll comply and be a good boy....

[Great-Kazoo]

jim, what the hell is wrong with these people?

You realize some will think you are being sarcastic I know, you know . Unfortunately, they have no clue what "they" said or did was / is wrong [facepalm]

WELL Whats wrong with UBC's OR 15 ROUND MAG LIMIT. huh IT'S A SAFETY ISSUE

FUK ME NYNCO must have sprinkled some LIBERAL DUST ON THE WEBZ

[Troublco]

You don't compromise your rights away. And in any case, compromise involves give and take on both sides of an issue. The gun grabbers aren't compromising a thing; the only ones losing are gun owners. And, ultimately, our Country.

[Great-Kazoo]

You don't compromise your rights away. And in any case, compromise involves give and take on both sides of an issue. The gun grabbers aren't compromising a thing; the only ones losing are gun owners. And, ultimately, WHAT IS LEFT OF our Country.

FIFY AND yes, you are correct.

[HBARleatherneck]

i dont care what they ban as long as they dont ban my side x side break open 12 gauge or my lever 30-30. actually i dont shoot the shotgun much. they can ban whatever as long as they dont ban a winchester model 94 in 30-30. otherwise i dont care. i am all for common sense gun laws and saving lives

[Great-Kazoo]

i dont care what they ban as long as they dont ban my side x side break open 12 gauge or my lever 30-30. actually i dont shoot the shotgun much. they can ban whatever as long as they dont ban a winchester model 94 in 30-30. otherwise i dont care. i am all for common sense gun laws and saving lives

Oh Ya don ch know der. dat 30-30s a goonuf deer to table gun. oh ya dang tootin

[HBARleatherneck]

delete

[Dalendenver]

I just ordered 80% lowers. Finish them myself and then keep them. No serial number, can't be registered/

[osok-308]

This is a bullsh*t law. So we've allowed private sales for longer than I've been alive, and Colorado has always had a lower violent crime rate than the rest of the country. So how have private sales hurt us? James Holmes purchased his guns through an FFL, just like Lanza's mom. Remind me how this will make us safer?

[HBARleatherneck]

dont worry yourself about how it will make us safer. if our masters say it will, it will.

[roberth]

Both the UBC and 1224 deny people the right to commerce, they deny our right to do as we please with our own property.

[davsel]

It appears some on this board are somehow unaware of what universal background checks mean.
IT IS THE FIRST STEP TOWARD CONFISCATION.

1) Find out who owns what.
2) Outlaw one or two classes of weapon at a time - allow an amnesty period or two to turn them in.
3) Kick in the doors of those who do not turn them in. They know who you are from 1) above.

Maybe they have only purchased guns from FFLs and do not know the difference. Maybe they believe the BS that FFLs will never have to turn over their files to the "authorities." Maybe they have no knowledge of how this worked brilliantly in (most recently) England, Australia, and across most of Europe.

The "authorities" are not going to come straight out and ask for registration. They don't think it will pass. Therefore, they figure on a backdoor registration - FFL paperwork - Names, serial numbers, addresses. Then they don't have to worry about forcing the gun owning population to register their guns, they only have to turn the heat up on the FFL holders to turn over their paperwork. The rest is easy once they have your address - few will resist.

DO NOT FALL FOR IT - IT WILL BE THE BEGINNING OF THE END.

If you currently own guns that are on FFL paperwork, take out an ad in a local paper to sell them. Make up a bogus bill of sale for each. There is absolutely nothing illegal about this. Then, when they tell you to turn them in, you have a paper trail to show that you sold them - before the universal background check was in place. Yes, fibbing to the authorities is considered illegal, but so is gun confiscation under 2A, so F'em.

[dwalker460]

The problem here is viewpoint. You guys who are OK with background checks are missing the point. ITS NONE OF ANYONES DAMNED BUSINESS WTF I HAVE IN MY HOME. BGC's, of any kind violate my 4th amendment right to privacy. PERIOD. It causes more harm than good, with innocent people barred from buying guns because of clerical errors or other mistakes, and does not one damned thing to prevent a single crime. Ever.
What it does do is violate my CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED right to PRIVACY. Do you get a BGC when you sell your chainsaw? Or how about a car/boat/motorcycle? How about with a set of kitchen knives? Why not? Those all kill as many or more people and are used in as many or more crimes than guns. Oh sure, if you want to register your car you have to get a tag, but there is no background check, just pay your fee and go, and there is no restriction on selling a car to a licensed driver, at all. Sell to whomever you damned well want. No problem.
But a GUN... well thats a different story. Because obviously the guns have only one purpose, and that is to kill folks, and commit heinous crimes. That bit about using them for sporting purposes, recreation, or collecting is all BS, because all a gun owner wants is to kill someone and go on a crime spree, so we MUST for PUBLIC SAFETY make sure only responsible adults buy those bad abd firearms, and even then we cant trust them, they could go postal at any moment.

Compromise? You have to be joking. Reasonable? Have you been ruffied? It is simply INSANE to allow the .gov to have any more knowledge of your private life than absolutely necessary. There is no reasonable or compromise for them until every citizen who will stand for the Constitution and the RIGHTS it PROTECTS is disarmed. Believe that above all else. This is not about safety. This is not about saving children, this is about protecting the inevitable creep of governmental control, and nothing else.

[roberth]

davsel, you're right. Some folks aren't seeing the writing on the wall. We are going down the road which results in death for the free man.

[brutal]

i dont care what they ban as long as they dont ban my side x side break open 12 gauge or my lever 30-30. actually i dont shoot the shotgun much. they can ban whatever as long as they dont ban a winchester model 94 in 30-30. otherwise i dont care. i am all for common sense gun laws and saving lives


Oh Ya don ch know der. dat 30-30s a goonuf deer to table gun. oh ya dang tootin

Alright Sven and Ollie, knock it off now eh? And so.

[Clint45]

You don't compromise your rights away. And in any case, compromise involves give and take on both sides of an issue. The gun grabbers aren't compromising a thing; the only ones losing are gun owners. And, ultimately, our Country.

This law, as it stands, is 100% unacceptable and completely wrong.

Compromise? I was thinking about that tonight, and I've got an idea for a reasonable and fair compromise.

Anyone who has a valid CCW permit is exempt from the background check. Furthermore, in addition to state issued CCW permits, a National CCW permit could be offered which is valid in all 50 states. It should never be required to have a permit to own or possess a firearm, but it could be used simply as a form of ID proving the owner has passed the required background check. Anyone who has a CCW permit is also qualified to possess hi-capacity magazines.

Background check would not apply to trades, gifts, inheritance, loans, use, transport, storage, or shipping one's own firearm to oneself.

No registration, no computerized database of purchase information.

Anyone who fails a background check should be entitled to an immediate explanation and be provided opportunity to contest that determination.

Background check should not apply to traditional rifles, shotguns, or antiques.

Penalties would not involve incarceration, loss of rights, or excessive fines.



THAT is a "compromise" . . . but the gun grabbers don't want to be fair or reasonable . . . they just want to take everything and threaten us with prison if we don't like it.


And for those of you who don't understand what I'm trying to say: ANYONE WITH A VALID CCW WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM REDUNDANT/PUNITIVE BACKGROUND CHECKS AND BE PERMITTED TO PURCHASE, SELL, AND POSSESS HI-CAP MAGAZINES.

They KNOW that you need to pass a background check to get a CCW . . . so WHY require a background check every time you buy, sell, trade, receive, or borrow a firearm from soimeone you've known for years? Two friends who own the same rifle in different calibers decide to swap . . . and they both face jail if they don't get official permission first? That makes absolutely no sense . . . unless they simply want to persecute all gun owners and treat them like criminals. THAT is the true purpose of these laws.

[Great-Kazoo]

And for those of you who don't understand what I'm trying to say: ANYONE WITH A VALID CCW WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM REDUNDANT/PUNITIVE BACKGROUND CHECKS AND BE PERMITTED TO PURCHASE, SELL, AND POSSESS HI-CAP MAGAZINES.

I read your post this morn,. 2-3x before deciding to have some breakfast, which never happened, oh well.
ANYWAY. Many years ago us CCW holders WE EXEMPT FROM A BG CHECK, for a short time. I agree CCW holders should be able to do a 4473 show your permit and walk out with new purchase.
WHAT i disagree with is your idea CCW holders in your mind would be given SPECIAL PRIVILEGES, non-permit holders would not have. WHY CCW and not everyone? If we follow that train of thought ONLY LE should be able to own / possess even when off duty.
WHY CCW / LE and not me? I own "a few" NFA items. Having gone through an extensive BG check and long wait period, shouldn't i be exempt? After all if the ATF / FBI did everything but a cavity search prior to approval, shirley i should be exempted.

EITHER WE ALL HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS OR WE DO NOT. NO CHERRY PICKING, ALL FOR ONE, ONE FOR ME[LOL]

[streetglideok]

It appears some on this board are somehow unaware of what universal background checks mean.
IT IS THE FIRST STEP TOWARD CONFISCATION.

1) Find out who owns what.
2) Outlaw one or two classes of weapon at a time - allow an amnesty period or two to turn them in.
3) Kick in the doors of those who do not turn them in. They know who you are from 1) above.

Maybe they have only purchased guns from FFLs and do not know the difference. Maybe they believe the BS that FFLs will never have to turn over their files to the "authorities." Maybe they have no knowledge of how this worked brilliantly in (most recently) England, Australia, and across most of Europe.

The "authorities" are not going to come straight out and ask for registration. They don't think it will pass. Therefore, they figure on a backdoor registration - FFL paperwork - Names, serial numbers, addresses. Then they don't have to worry about forcing the gun owning population to register their guns, they only have to turn the heat up on the FFL holders to turn over their paperwork. The rest is easy once they have your address - few will resist.

DO NOT FALL FOR IT - IT WILL BE THE BEGINNING OF THE END.

If you currently own guns that are on FFL paperwork, take out an ad in a local paper to sell them. Make up a bogus bill of sale for each. There is absolutely nothing illegal about this. Then, when they tell you to turn them in, you have a paper trail to show that you sold them - before the universal background check was in place. Yes, fibbing to the authorities is considered illegal, but so is gun confiscation under 2A, so F'em.

I think you're spot on with this. Confiscation is their end game, and the grand wizard of gun control, Crazy Joe Biden, is telling the sheep in each state what they need to pass. It will lead

the ground work for what lays ahead. Joe may be betting on a run for president in 2016, or big O [obama] defying the constitution[goFyourself]yet again and running for a third term. In either case, further restrictions will be coming. Some said we were paranoid in 2012 about a gun grab, but here we are getting [bad-banana]. We already compromised with NICS. That was more than enough, and it has been abused under Clinton.

[XJ]

El Paso County Sheriff Maketa in the Gazette http://www.gazette.com/articles/maketa-152285-gun-angry.html


“One of the reasons a vast, vast majority of sheriffs around this state are opposing these bills and all aspects of these bills is because they are concerned that this is a stepping stone to registration” of gun owners, he said.

[Clint45]

I think you're spot on with this. Confiscation is their end game, and the grand wizard of gun control, Crazy Joe Biden, is telling the sheep in each state what they need to pass. It will lead

The big mistake is assuming that Biden and Bloomberg are "crazy" or "stupid." Both men certainly appear to be bumbling dimwitted simpletons when in the public eye. That is an act. They are cunning and manipulative and know exactly what they are doing. They KNOW the law is illogical and unfair. They KNOW it will do nothing to make America "safer." They KNOW gun owners will resent being treated like criminals. They DO NOT EXPECT people to comply with the law. They KNOW that thousands of formerly law-abiding citizens will soon be arrested, stripped of their rights, and have their lives ruined as a result of these laws. It makes absolutely no sense UNLESS you realize that it is not intended to make sense. They WANT people to break these laws. They WANT people to get angry and organize in groups that they can label as "conspiracies," "subversives," "hate groups" or whatever label they need to vilify us in the media and infiltrate our gatherings to collect intel and attempt to encourage or incite unlawful activity. This was never about "the children", hi-cap mags, or mandatory background checks. This is about turning the American public against gun owners, wrongfully portraying them all as "potential killers" and intolerant bigots.

[mitch]

So, who is going to be filing the appeal and requesting injunction as soon as it's signed? Meaning, who here is going to knowingly violate the new law in order to get arrested and file the paperwork (SCOTUS needs someone to actually be injured in order to seek redress).

[Byte Stryke]

Shall not not be infringed...

in·fringe

/inˈfrinj/
Verb


Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".

Synonyms
violate - transgress - break - contravene - trespass

[spqrzilla]

Those people who think that the largest problem with the "universal background check" bill is the background check on private transfers haven't been paying attention. The biggest threat from the bill is that - depending on what language we ultimately see pass both houses - that it criminalizes many ordinary temporary loans of firearms depending upon technical differences among the circumstances.

And Schumer's Senate bill has the same language but ups the penalty to Federal felony.

[sniper7]

Honestly there should be no background check at all...ever. These should be sold like fishing poles or knives at Walmart. The guns don't commit the crimes, the people do. No amount of background check will stop that. These are tools, just like hammers, knives, baseball bats, screwdrivers, even a balled up fist. All of them kill, some more than others. Yet only one is scrutinized at every turn and labeled as killing machines that should be banned.

[Clint45]

Those people who think that the largest problem with the "universal background check" bill is the background check on private transfers haven't been paying attention. The biggest threat from the bill is that - depending on what language we ultimately see pass both houses - that it criminalizes many ordinary temporary loans of firearms depending upon technical differences among the circumstances.

And Schumer's Senate bill has the same language but ups the penalty to Federal felony.

Actually, even though the Colorado mag ban and UBC are labeled as misdemeanor offenses under state law, due to the fact that there is a potential 18 month sentence as well as a 2 year revocation on gun rights these "misdemeanors" are considered felonies by the BATFE.

[spqrzilla]

We'll have to see final language, Clint, which I've not yet. Schumer's bill had 5 year sentences for some violations.

[buffalobo]

Honestly there should be no background check at all...ever. These should be sold like fishing poles or knives at Walmart. The guns don't commit the crimes, the people do. No amount of background check will stop that. These are tools, just like hammers, knives, baseball bats, screwdrivers, even a balled up fist. All of them kill, some more than others. Yet only one is scrutinized at every turn and labeled as killing machines that should be banned.

Well said, key word tools. Used to argue on another forum that they should be sold in vending machines.

BGC are a waste of time and money. Those who cannot pass, know it and will not try.

Sent from my DROID Pro using Tapatalk 2

[dwalker460]

Those who cannot pass, know it and will not try.


Not necessarily. I failed a BGC when I first moved here because some idiot with a similar name had issues. It was a major PITA to resolve.

Background checks are a serious invasion to your right to privacy and completely UN Constitutional. Honestly, if I felon went into a gun store an purchased a weapon the only way you would ever know is if they got caught doing something wrong again, and it stacks up against them. More jailtime, more serious consequences. Even if they get caught speeding on the way to a grocery and the cop finds a firearm in their possession it becomes a bad day for them. On the other hand, if the guy is a career criminal or has murder on his mind, he is not shopping in a gun store. Has never happened. They shop in your house when they rob you or buy it off the street from other criminals they feel they can trust. Buy a gun off a stranger? Sure, a guy who could easily be a cop or report suspicious activity? Criminals are not especially stupid, especially career felons.
What the background check DOES accomplish it is very neatly compiles a list of who has applied for a NCIC check for a weapon, Sure they dont know WHICH weapon you purchased, but they sure as hell know you did. And that should keep you awake at night.

[Troublco]

Well said, key word tools. Used to argue on another forum that they should be sold in vending machines.

BGC are a waste of time and money. Those who cannot pass, know it and will not try.

Before 1968 you used to be able to buy guns through the mail. You could call (or write) places like Bannerman's and order Mausers, Enfields, and such to be shipped right to your house. However, since Lee Harvey Oswald did this it was used as a reason to stop this practice, and require that (unless you bought from a private individual) a dealer fill out a BATF form.

Then as part of the Brady Bill, they wanted background checks when you buy from a dealer. Still nothing if you buy from an individual, except in Colorado where they eventually "closed the gun show loophole". What a crock.

Now, oh boy, even though the statistical numbers don't support what they want, they're going to go full-Rahm Emmanuel and not let a crisis go to waste; we want UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS! (And lots of other things.) It's for the children! Why, not even those rotten, murdering bastards...cough, cough...I mean, gun owners could oppose this common sense fix, right? (Heavy sarcasm throughout...)

LOOK AT HISTORY. LOOK AT THE NUMBERS. Gun control is BS. It's only possible purpose is to enable a group or entity to be able to control another group, or country. Every time someone (usually with a history of mental issues, who's either on or just off drugs to help deal with those issues) gets a gun and goes berserk they're breaking all sorts of laws. So why are more going to help? Prohibition worked, right? The war on drugs is a raging success, correct? So what would be the purpose of gun control? Only thing I can think of is to allow the violation of all of our other rights, without us having the ability to contest it.

IMHO, gun owners who stand there and say that we should accept this, that it's inevitable, there's nothing wrong with it, etc, are at best short sighted and self centered, and at worst...well, I just won't go there.
This crap about "common sense gun laws", "compromise", it's all just crap. It isn't common sense, the statistics and reality don't bear it out. And it sure as hell isn't compromise...that's their BS to try to get people to accept what they want. Compromise involves both sides of an issue giving something up to meet somewhere in the middle...what are the socialists/marxists/fudds giving up?

NOTHING.

They gain, and we lose, EVERY TIME.

[dwalker460]

It used to be you went in, paid for your gun, and walked out. No signature, no ID unless they thought you were under 18, and no paperwork of any kind. its the "common sense" invasions of our privacy that is the issue.

[Trisha]

What also concerned me was the apparent lack of provision insuring the security of the registration electronic file. Mexico wants it? How about campaign donors with deep pockets who happen to own a few dozen newspapers? The UN wants it?

An electronic file is like a porn tape - it's forever, somewhere.

If this/these get signed into law, one ramification is that we're going to have to invest in upgraded security systems and gun safes, 'cause what little we do own will be that much more desirable to those who don't mind risking home invasion/burglary to secure what they want and screw up as individuals.

Thsi can quickly become a famine economy application - not good.

Time to engage layers at home.

[sandman76]

Anybody with a CCW permit most likely has a gun or guns. Confiscation schemes would start right there. Already registered as a gun owner.

[Troublco]

Anybody with a CCW permit most likely has a gun or guns. Confiscation schemes would start right there. Already registered as a gun owner.


Curio and Relic FFL holders would be before CCW holders, I think. Federal as opposed to State.

[Clint45]

There is NO LEGITIMATE REASON why anyone with a valid CCW permit should need to abide by the background check restriction for private party sales. They just want an excuse to lock people up over bullshit. In New York an unregistered handgun is treated nearly the same by law enforcement and the courts as if you had a baggie full of heroin or meth. That's what they want to do here . . . turn guns into contraband . . . and a few additional laws is all it will take to get to that point.

[sellersm]

After all if the ATF / FBI did everything but a cavity search prior to approval, shirley i should be exempted.

"And don't call me Shirley!" [LOL]

ALL of these gun-grabbing bills are meant for one thing: criminalize the general, 2A population and squash individual liberties. Learn from history, don't re-live it!

[flan7211]

I'm fuming. I work in a gun store.

Two guys just come in. Old man is selling to nephew. M-1 carbine. Stupid ass old man wants guy to do a background check because the guns registered to his name. I asked him registered where? He replies Colorado[Bang]. He also says he wants to get rid of it because he doesn't want to be part of the problem anymore. Same fucktard was in last week talking about taking on the feds. I hate gun stores. FUCK!

[DavieD55]

I'm fuming. I work in a gun store.

Two guys just come in. Old man is selling to nephew. M-1 carbine. Stupid ass old man wants guy to do a background check because the guns registered to his name. I asked him registered where? He replies Colorado[Bang]. He also says he wants to get rid of it because he doesn't want to be part of the problem anymore. Same fucktard was in last week talking about taking on the feds. I hate gun stores. FUCK!

Did you remind him that it isn't the law yet? lol

[dwalker460]

More importantly, did you charge them triple? Being stupid and complacent should cost...

[flan7211]

Did you remind him that it isn't the law yet? lol

Didn't care. I tried. All he said was he didn't care and was scared of what would happen if he didn't. Fcking coward fudd.

[buffalobo]

Not necessarily. I failed a BGC when I first moved here because some idiot with a similar name had issues. It was a major PITA to resolve.



Background checks are a serious invasion to your right to privacy and completely UN Constitutional. Honestly, if I felon went into a gun store an purchased a weapon the only way you would ever know is if they got caught doing something wrong again, and it stacks up against them. More jailtime, more serious consequences. Even if they get caught speeding on the way to a grocery and the cop finds a firearm in their possession it becomes a bad day for them. On the other hand, if the guy is a career criminal or has murder on his mind, he is not shopping in a gun store. Has never happened. They shop in your house when they rob you or buy it off the street from other criminals they feel they can trust. Buy a gun off a stranger? Sure, a guy who could easily be a cop or report suspicious activity? Criminals are not especially stupid, especially career felons.
What the background check DOES accomplish it is very neatly compiles a list of who has applied for a NCIC check for a weapon, Sure they dont know WHICH weapon you purchased, but they sure as hell know you did. And that should keep you awake at night.


No offense but you missed it entirely. Law abiding citizens don't fail background checks(and you didn't fail either, a mix up failed you and while it was PITA, it was fixed), and felons know better than to try. The failure rate of BGC's is pretty damn low as a percentage. Hence the statement that it is a waste of time and money.

The rest of the post was all over the road so I will leave it alone.