Gun Control Hits Snag in Senate

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Stillersfan, Mar 7, 2013.

  1. Stillersfan

    Stillersfan New Member

    520
    0
    0
  2. Garadex

    Garadex New Member

    1,267
    0
    0
    Yay for snags on crappy bills!
     

  3. CaseyChadwell

    CaseyChadwell New Member

    825
    0
    0
    Anyone else find it troubling and disgusting that they are pushing so hard for gun control and only "considering" measures to keep our kids safe in schools?
     
  4. danf_fl

    danf_fl Retired Supporter

    12,385
    97
    48
    How do these proposals reduce the problem of gun violence?

    Wasn't Biden's committee suppose to present viable answers?
     
  5. PanBaccha

    PanBaccha New Member

    3,054
    2
    0
    No, it is in line with eventual confiscation of firearms. And then .... :(
     
  6. Stillersfan

    Stillersfan New Member

    520
    0
    0
    And they still dont know the difference between a magazine and a clip!
     
  7. StainlessSteel215

    StainlessSteel215 New Member

    821
    0
    0
    Exactly what I posted a couple hours ago as it was happening....but this is more detailed. Thanks
     
  8. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,743
    1,070
    113
    Can't we please give that old bullh!t a rest!:mad:
     
  9. jgoertz

    jgoertz New Member

    497
    0
    0
    .....Amen^^*^*
     
  10. Warrior1256

    Warrior1256 New Member

    614
    0
    0
    Good news indeed! However, this is not the time to sit back and relax. Keep those calls, letters, and e-mails going out to your senators.
     
  11. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,266
    374
    83
    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.
     
  12. msup752

    msup752 New Member

    562
    0
    0
    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.
     
  13. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,743
    1,070
    113
    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.
     
  14. 1911love

    1911love New Member

    1,488
    0
    0
    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.
     
  15. msup752

    msup752 New Member

    562
    0
    0
    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.
     
  16. Flat Tire

    Flat Tire New Member

    1,905
    0
    0
    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: Mar 9, 2013
  17. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,743
    1,070
    113

    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?
     
  18. msup752

    msup752 New Member

    562
    0
    0
    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.
     
  19. Flat Tire

    Flat Tire New Member

    1,905
    0
    0
    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.
     
  20. msup752

    msup752 New Member

    562
    0
    0
    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.