Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Arizona Senator Jeff Flake to consider "Universal Background Checks"
Gun Watch ^ | 22 January, 2013 | Dean Weingarten

Posted on 01/21/2013 9:24:38 PM PST by marktwain

Freshman Senator from Arizona, Jeff Flake, appears to be bending from pressure in the media to "do something" to infringe on Second Amendment Rights. Given the rumors about Senator John McCain, one wonders if John may be giving his younger colleague advice. On Sunday, 20 January, this was published in the Arizona Republic:

Echoing many of his lower-chamber colleagues on Friday, Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., said he likely would have a hard time supporting a new federal ban on “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines but suggested there may be common ground on universal background checks.

“I’ve always said we’ve got to do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them,” Flake said. “There have been some technological issues with gun shows, and you want to make sure that people can legally buy guns for protection or recreation or collection without untimely delays. But I think technology has moved so that we can better deal with that issue and have broader background checks.”

Requiring the 99 percent who are law abiding to jump through hoops in order to try to keep the 1 percent who are dangerous from aquireing firearms has always been a losing proposition. It is a failed paradigm that should be abandoned. It has always been a path meant to end with registration so as to enable confiscation.

Jeff Flake has an A rating with the NRA. It is time for his constituents to remind him that they do not need, nor does it serve the public, to suffer further infringements on the Second Amendment with "universal firearms registration" I mean "universal background checks", which are designed to end up at the same place.

What does work are projects to make sure that those who are prohibited from having firearms do not have them. That has been tried and does work. Limited resources should be applied to that effort, not the irresponsible and ineffective idea of establishing dangerous bureaucracies to check on millions to catch a few irresponsible individuals.

Dean Weingarten


TOPICS: Government; History; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: az; backgroundchecks; banglist; guncontrol; jeffflake; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 next last
To: coloradan

coloradan: “I could go along with universal checks if the make, model, and serial number of the transferred firearm were not recorded on the form. But they are, so I am opposed.”

Is this true? I haven’t purchased guns from dealers. Does the government know exactly what was purchased? If so, why? What does that have to do with checking to see if the buyer is safe to own guns?

Myself? I’m not opposed to background checks on all gun transfers, including private ones. It would be hard to enforce private sales, but if I was selling a gun, I’d like to know the person I was selling it to wasn’t a nutjob. So government could maintain a list of criminals, mental patients, etc., who are not permitted to own a gun. Prospective buyers could be checked against that list without creating a national database of who purchased a gun and what was purchased.

I think the real issue here is we don’t trust government for obvious reasons. 100% gun registration means the government would know who has what. It’s a relatively simple jump from that to gun confiscation, and confiscation is unlikely to come all at once. They’ll do it bit by bit so it doesn’t create a confrontation with millions of owners all at once.


21 posted on 01/21/2013 11:26:31 PM PST by CitizenUSA (Why celebrate evil? Evil is easy. Good is the goal worth striving for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

How about a background check on the President~?!!?!?!?!?


22 posted on 01/21/2013 11:40:42 PM PST by rawcatslyentist ("Behold, I am against you, O arrogant one," Jeremiah 50:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
...but if I was selling a gun, I’d like to know the person I was selling it to wasn’t a nutjob.

I'm pretty sure most FFLs will run the check on your buyer if you ask them to. I think the gov charges a small fee and the FFL might ask for a fee too but I'd bet most wouldn't. No need to put that on everyone to satisfy you.

23 posted on 01/21/2013 11:51:33 PM PST by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye; CitizenUSA
No need to put that on everyone to satisfy you.

Amen!!!

24 posted on 01/21/2013 11:56:57 PM PST by Bradís Gramma (Psalm 83)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

I’m not saying background checks should be mandatory for private transactions. I’m pointing out that background checks should be focused on stopping nutjobs from getting guns, not attempting to create a national database of gun owners and the weapons they own (that’s what the left wants so it can confiscate weapons later on). If that system was readily available and easy to use for private transactions, then I’d certainly use it. However, there’s no way to enforce mandatory checks for private sales. Criminals will disregard them. If the goal is what the left claims, then I think there’s a reasonable compromise. Of course, the left is disingenious.


25 posted on 01/22/2013 12:17:13 AM PST by CitizenUSA (Why celebrate evil? Evil is easy. Good is the goal worth striving for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Theoria
Sure, why not have background checks for speech, assembly, redress, and practicing religion while we are at it.

Amen. How about a "universal background check" on everyone crossing the border?

This is all, entirely, what the Russians call "spectacle."

It is a presumption of status, subordination of citizens to the state, it is allowing a licensing by a distant power of the natural right to self-defense.

Where is the clear and present danger, even a "compelling state interest" in allowing a grandstanding Congress and federal bureaucrats and federal police superseding local regulation?

This is still allowing liberals and messed up liberal state governments and media monsters to frame the debate.

No quarter to the bastards. It's still "spinach," and I still say to hell with it.

26 posted on 01/22/2013 12:33:41 AM PST by Prospero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: absalom01

I would add a little comment. Since this background check is such a “swell” idea...let’s tie voter registration into this and require a background check each four years on registered voters.

Since it doesn’t infringe upon the American citizen...as we are told...then it won’t hurt on voting checks either.


27 posted on 01/22/2013 1:53:56 AM PST by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

Why not let those THAT WANT TO get a universal firearms buyer card? Just like a drivers license, good for xx number of years, includes a background check, can be used at gun stores, gun shows, etc. As long as someone has this card they can immediately purchase any weapons/ammo they want - no need for waiting periods, any other background checks, etc. NO record of WHICH or HOW MANY weapons or ammo someone buys. If you don’t want to get the card, fine, then you still go through the regular background checks, etc. every time you buy a weapon.


28 posted on 01/22/2013 3:00:31 AM PST by conservaterian (NOW can we have a conservative candidate?????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: conservaterian

A firearms buyer card could be easily faked, plus to get one, the buyer would have to be registered somewhere. I don’t like the idea.


29 posted on 01/22/2013 3:11:12 AM PST by CitizenUSA (Why celebrate evil? Evil is easy. Good is the goal worth striving for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
One of three things are going to happen:

1) The Federal Governement will set up a National Firearms Identification Card, and anyone who possesses a firearm or wishes to buy guns or ammunition will have to obtain said license first.

B) The Federal Government will chide the states (through withheld tax dollars) into creating state Firearms Owner Identification Cards such as those that already exist is several states. Again, this card is required to possess or purchase ammunition and firearms.

III) All face-to-face sales of firearms will have to be transferred through an FFL. An FFL may also be required to transfer ammunition bought online.

"Universal" background checks, in one of the above forms, is going to happen. Hopefully, it will be in the form of a check box on your Driver's License.

30 posted on 01/22/2013 3:15:01 AM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

That’s just the problem with so many of our elected politicians on the Republican side. They just cannot say NO, HELL NO!.....

They think the media and the Democrats will like them if they just can appease a little bit. They somehow think they have to bring something to the table to give up so they big bad Democrats won’t take it all. This never works.

The Senator should be b!tch-slapped back to the stone age.


31 posted on 01/22/2013 3:16:27 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Background checks stopped Adam Lanza from legally buying a gun but they didn’t stop him from shooting 26 people.


32 posted on 01/22/2013 3:21:40 AM PST by ez (When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
A firearms buyer card could be easily faked, plus to get one, the buyer would have to be registered somewhere. I don’t like the idea.>>>>>Buyers are registered now every time they get a background check and purchase a weapon - also with warranties,etc. that everyone forgets about. Anyway, easy to make hard to fake cards with the new technology out there and remember I said this would just be for those that want them- it would make purchases much easier for those that use them.
33 posted on 01/22/2013 3:32:57 AM PST by conservaterian (NOW can we have a conservative candidate?????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: conservaterian; All

“Buyers are registered now every time they get a background check and purchase a weapon - also with warranties,etc. that everyone forgets about.”

A common misconception. Private sales are the safety valve that prevents this. If the government says, you bought a gun on so and so date, where is it?, you can say “I sold it” and you do not have to prove anything, so effective registration is prevented.

What they want to put in place is a system where you cannot sell the firearm without a permanent record of where it went. This is another step toward universal registration.

Gun Registration is Gun Confiscation

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/gun-registration-is-gun-confiscation.html


34 posted on 01/22/2013 4:02:46 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: entropy12; All
None of the recent events (Theater shooting, Sandy Hook) would have been prevented by a background check. So why are we all being pushed to accept “Universal Background Checks” now?

Because this is another incremental step toward “universal gun registration” that the left has been pushing to get for decades. Every step has been ineffective in fighting crime, and the result it to call for another ineffective step. The end result it registration, and registration is only good for eventual confiscation, whether piecemeal and over generations, as the requirements are tightened, or all together, when the numbers of gun owners have been reduced enough to render them politically ineffective.

Just look at New York City, where we are getting much of our grief is coming from. They have had unconstitutional laws on the books for a century. Almost no one owns legal guns, and the population has been so conditioned to their enhanced helplessness that the want to push it on everyone else.

35 posted on 01/22/2013 4:14:32 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

we can’t verify Id at the voting booth... but full background checks are required before I can exercise my ‘right’?

really?

what a farce


36 posted on 01/22/2013 4:18:20 AM PST by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

37 posted on 01/22/2013 4:22:07 AM PST by csmusaret (I will give Obama credit for one thing- he is living proof that familiarity breeds contempt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Tell ya what, Flake.

Run “Universal Background Checks” on all of Congress and their staff members first. Fire the staff members and expel the Congresscritters who don’t pass. Then we can talk about running these checks on gun buyers.


38 posted on 01/22/2013 4:42:54 AM PST by Little Ray (Waiting for the return of the Gods of the Copybook Headings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chris37

The concept that a National Agency to oversee ALL firearm transactions, and approve or deny each transaction is just short sighted and wrong.

I was a teen when my Uncle GAVE me my first firearm [ a 410 shotgun ]. In my 20’s, and upon my return from VietNam I recieved a 22 rifle as a welcome home gift.

When one of my best friends move to the country, I gave him a varmint rifle.

When a neighbor was transferred oversees , by the USAF, I purchased his pellet gun.

When I pass, I intend to WILL my firearms to specific individuals.

I don’t see any need or Reason for a Federal Bureaucracy to be involved with stuff like that.


39 posted on 01/22/2013 5:41:20 AM PST by PizzaDriver ( on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Brad's Gramma

Letter sent.


40 posted on 01/22/2013 7:24:20 AM PST by HiJinx (The New Year is here; to all Men Good Cheer. (Last one out, turn out the lights.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson