Gun Control Hits Snag in Senate - Page 2
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Gun Control Hits Snag in Senate

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-08-2013, 05:07 PM   #11
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SW OK
Posts: 4,590
Liked 2250 Times on 1224 Posts
Likes Given: 3512

Default

Scummy Schumers brand of gun control is too much for US senator Kirk of IL; a dedicated anti gunner. Kirk quit the negotiations for universal background checks.

__________________
alsaqr is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013, 07:32 PM   #12
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 508
Liked 56 Times on 45 Posts

Default

Sounds like NBC is in favor of gun control. "For now" was their favorite phrase and saying this was to be the centerpiece of BO's gun control push! Yikes.

The "assault weapon" ban is just a sideshow and unlikely to even be voted on. The compromise issue the politicians were getting behind that they figured would please the liberals but wouldn't tick off to many conservatives or gun owners is universal background checks. As they just figured out, it is not possible to enforce universal checks without gun registration. That is not going to appeal to conservatives or gun owners.

Plus it is hard to say how the Feds have the power to regulate a private sale of a lawful item between two residents of the same state.

__________________
msup752 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013, 10:24 PM   #13
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
locutus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 10,174
Liked 6533 Times on 3643 Posts
Likes Given: 6171

Default

The idea that universal back ground checks can't be done without registration is just plain wrong.

It can be enforced like any other law. If a person is caught violating it, they are prosecuted.

The idea that you need registration is a figment of Upchuck Schumer's sick imagination.

locutus is offline  
opaww Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2013, 04:48 AM   #14
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
1911love's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,488
Liked 644 Times on 389 Posts
Likes Given: 12

Default

Locutus: How would you enforce UBCs w/o registration? I buy a Glock 20 from my buddy John. 12 years later I am CC my G20. I fit the description a criminal and am stopped by a LEO. I'm frisked and he runs the serial. Gun isn't stolen. LEO asked if I had the gun go through an FFL to take possession(UBC). Yes officer, I did. How can he prove I went through an FFL for the check w/o a list(registration) to cross reference and determine the guns "ownership path"? Make no mistake, UBCs is just registration in disguise.

__________________
1911love is offline  
Sniper03 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2013, 12:19 PM   #15
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 508
Liked 56 Times on 45 Posts

Default

I was just discussing this issue again with the Lt of a local PD. He suggested a federal firearm purchase card that the buyer must possess and the seller must check before a transaction occurs.
I asked to see his drivers license to make a point. I looked at it and asked him how I would be sure his license was valid. He only has to renew it every 5 years. It could be suspended, denied and revoked or restricted and yet here he was presenting it to me as valid. As a police officer, he would have access to current computer records for that info but civilians would not.
My state, MI, just went through this issue. Legislators wanted to nix our pistol registry but somehow force background checks on private pistol purchases. A solution was not found as registration is the only way to insure all purchases have background checks.
The Lt agreed with my point and has pretty much abandoned the idea of a firearms purchaser card.

__________________
msup752 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2013, 02:38 PM   #16
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Idaho --,Happy
Posts: 1,905
Liked 341 Times on 237 Posts
Likes Given: 38

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911love View Post
Locutus: How would you enforce UBCs w/o registration? I buy a Glock 20 from my buddy John. 12 years later I am CC my G20. I fit the description a criminal and am stopped by a LEO. I'm frisked and he runs the serial. Gun isn't stolen. LEO asked if I had the gun go through an FFL to take possession(UBC). Yes officer, I did. How can he prove I went through an FFL for the check w/o a list(registration) to cross reference and determine the guns "ownership path"? Make no mistake, UBCs is just registration in disguise.
Thats like saying every gun purchased at a gun store is registration in disguise. From what I have seen if a gun has been in a crime the coppers contact the manufacturer and find out who they sold the gun to. Then they contact that retail outlet and find out who they sold the gun to. Eventually they contact the first person that purchased that gun. SIMPLE, is that registration ?
At some point if you sell a gun that was in your name down that chain of paper work you need to be able to say who you sold it to. It would be simple to have UBC's and have it the same as it is right now. Why would anyone sell a gun to someone that would not pass a UBC ?????
When does the copper ask if you can prove you got the gun thru a UBC ?? They only look to see if it is stolen, and if it is you might want to show who you bought it from.
__________________

Last edited by Flat Tire; 03-09-2013 at 02:42 PM.
Flat Tire is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2013, 03:43 PM   #17
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
locutus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 10,174
Liked 6533 Times on 3643 Posts
Likes Given: 6171

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911love View Post
Locutus: How would you enforce UBCs w/o registration? I buy a Glock 20 from my buddy John. 12 years later I am CC my G20. I fit the description a criminal and am stopped by a LEO. I'm frisked and he runs the serial. Gun isn't stolen. LEO asked if I had the gun go through an FFL to take possession(UBC). Yes officer, I did. How can he prove I went through an FFL for the check w/o a list(registration) to cross reference and determine the guns "ownership path"? Make no mistake, UBCs is just registration in disguise.

Uhhhhh..... in the country I live in, (USA) the burden of proof is on the prosecution. You aren't obliged to prove a damn thing.

He must have probable cause that he can articulate, or he must assume you are legal.. Remember presumption of innocence?
locutus is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2013, 04:06 PM   #18
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 508
Liked 56 Times on 45 Posts

Default

So how will you enforce it without registration again? ATF records are backwards searchable only back to the dealer.
Currently, background check records are required to be destroyed and do not document what make, model or serial number was purchased if the check was ok.
So if the law changes and a background check is required for all firearm transfers, how can anyone possibly verify a check was done if no weapon information is obtained and the records are destroyed?
Lets pretend the law changes and records are kept on who calls in for background checks and who the check was done on. It still doesn't prove that a specific transaction occurred as a result of the check. You would have to attach a serial number to the check and if you do that, registration! The government would have a computerized database of names attached to firearms for all transactions done after the system is implemented. Any existing firearms or illegal ones would still be unregistered.
The scenario above creates a new problem. If you are approached by LE and they inquire if you possess the firearm legally, how can they show if the firearm was yours before the law changed or if you acquired it without a background check? If it was made before mandatory checks were required, there is no way to tell.
That leaves one way to enforce background checks on all purchases. All legally owned firearms would have to be registered so LE could verify you legally possess it or them. No grandfathering could be permitted.
Remember, criminals have no duty to register their guns and cannot be prosecuted for not doing so under their 5th amendment right to refuse self incrimination.
So I'll ask again. How can the Feds require and enforce background checks on all guns without registration?
I'm not opposed to private citizens having access to background checks for private sales as long as the answer they get is "eligible" "denied" or "pending". Otherwise it can be abused.

__________________
msup752 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2013, 04:22 PM   #19
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Idaho --,Happy
Posts: 1,905
Liked 341 Times on 237 Posts
Likes Given: 38

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by msup752 View Post
So how will you enforce it without registration again? ATF records are backwards searchable only back to the dealer.
Currently, background check records are required to be destroyed and do not document what make, model or serial number was purchased if the check was ok.
It could remain just like that. If you were to sell a gun privately you would just take it to a gun shop and they would transfer it just like any other gun to the new owner. The coppers would have to prove you sold it to this person after this new law came into affect.
__________________
Flat Tire is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2013, 05:10 PM   #20
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 508
Liked 56 Times on 45 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat Tire

It could remain just like that. If you were to sell a gun privately you would just take it to a gun shop and they would transfer it just like any other gun to the new owner. The coppers would have to prove you sold it to this person after this new law came into affect.
That is done today although not required and at an additional cost for the dealers time.

It still does not solve the problem of 150+ million guns already out there and forcing background checks when those change hands. Anyone possessing one could say they acquired it before the law went into effect and there is no way to prove otherwise without registration.

Add into all this the additional cost of using a dealer for private transfers and the Feds controlling intra state commerce and there are serious issues to deal with.

I'm all for universal background checks but I'm still not seeing a lawful way to accomplish it.
__________________
msup752 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Sig Snag... KMO 1911 Forum 4 09-30-2012 06:06 PM
And the hits keep coming...... cddbrowns Politics, Religion and Controversy 2 07-13-2011 01:23 AM
Benning Hits The Big Time user4 The Club House 7 07-30-2009 10:48 PM
Atheist bus ads hits chicago Gojubrian Politics, Religion and Controversy 81 06-12-2009 04:15 AM
**** this one hits me gnoll The Club House 0 04-28-2008 12:21 AM