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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last
"Universal Background Checks" are just a code to move toward Universal Firearms Registration. They will accomplish nothing to reduce crime, they have always been a failure in this regard.

If you want to reduce crime, go after those who truely should not have weapons.

1 posted on 01/21/2013 9:24:42 PM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: HiJinx; SandRat

Here. Now.


2 posted on 01/21/2013 9:39:03 PM PST by Bradís Gramma (Psalm 83)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Confucius say man who look for gun find bullet.


3 posted on 01/21/2013 9:39:06 PM PST by bunkerhill7 (The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Ah republicans, they never cease to not amaze me.


4 posted on 01/21/2013 9:49:32 PM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

http://www.flake.senate.gov/


5 posted on 01/21/2013 9:49:41 PM PST by Bradís Gramma (Psalm 83)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Universal Sanity Checks? Will this apply to voter registrations as well?


6 posted on 01/21/2013 9:50:44 PM PST by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Well, maybe this is an opportunity to walk back some of the bad ideas that we’ve had shoved down our throats since 1968.

For instance, if all we’re concerned about is “background checks”, why does a 4473 have to go along with every firearm? Change the law — run a potential buyer through NICs, sure, no problem. But why keep a record of the private sale firearm that two private citizens want to sell?


7 posted on 01/21/2013 9:59:34 PM PST by absalom01 (You should do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, and you should never wish to do less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Psalm 146:3


8 posted on 01/21/2013 10:13:13 PM PST by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: absalom01

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.


9 posted on 01/21/2013 10:16:56 PM PST by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: coloradan

Well, it won’t change, because the immediate goal is registration, but it could.

What congress mandates, congress can unmandate.


10 posted on 01/21/2013 10:26:05 PM PST by absalom01 (You should do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, and you should never wish to do less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

the GOP senate should be required to carry strap on dildos with them at all times so they can be reminded what they are doing to us by being so damned weak

sickening


11 posted on 01/21/2013 10:30:15 PM PST by wardaddy (wanna know how my kin felt during Reconstruction in Mississippi, you fixin to find out firsthand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I’m for universal background checks, if we can solve the problem of how to check backgrounds without giving one private person access to information about another private person’s fitness to own a gun.

I believe you should be able to request your own background check. That way, if you find you are flagged in error, you can take care of it, and if it turns out you are flagged correctly, in the sense that legally you are not allowed to buy a gun, you KNOW this so you don’t go try to buy a gun and then get prosecuted for trying when you weren’t allowed.

Having checked ahead of time, you should then be able to give another private owner a code, which they could use to go to the background check site, which would tell them ONLY if you cleared. They wouldn’t get your information, and couldn’t randomly check people.

And NO registration. Not until we have a way to ensure the list is only accessable by GUN, and not accessable until a particular gun is used in a crime.

The left has demonstrated how gun registration leads to crime. So eliminating registration is the best way to limit gun crimes.

But so long as there are laws that constitutionally prohibit certain people from having guns, I support the means to enforce those laws, which means background checks.


12 posted on 01/21/2013 10:31:46 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I agree with you that it doesn’t look like background checks are really doing anything to stop gun violence — but it’s hard to say since we have no idea how many potential criminals are being deterred because they can’t allow their names to be checked.


13 posted on 01/21/2013 10:33:08 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Jeff better remember his base or he will be looking for a new job next election. Arizonans don’t go for that gun control crap AT ALL


14 posted on 01/21/2013 10:34:12 PM PST by clamper1797 (De-throne King Obozo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Unfortunately for the liberals, Flake is in the Senate, not the house. The House is where all this craps stops dead.


15 posted on 01/21/2013 10:36:33 PM PST by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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.”

Good point...what is the EXCUSE for recording all of that information? Other than maybe class of firearms, why is the other info needed?


16 posted on 01/21/2013 10:38:06 PM PST by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

The Left are desperate to push gun control as fast as possible.


17 posted on 01/21/2013 10:45:18 PM PST by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

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


18 posted on 01/21/2013 10:49:37 PM PST by Theoria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I’m waiting for Flake to do a background check on Obama..then come talk about gun owners Obama has his finger on the button.


19 posted on 01/21/2013 10:50:40 PM PST by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I am for background checks but NOT UNIVERSAL registration. Why would any one want ex-cons, spouse abusers, mentally sick people to be able to buy guns without a background check? It is said that most gun crime is committed with illegal guns but how do we know that? For every gun crime which results in arrest and gun confiscation there are many more unsolved crimes. We just do not know what exact gun was used in unsolved crimes. How many of the 504 Chicago murders in 2012 were solved and guns confiscated?

I completely agree universal registration on a national level is step towards confiscation at worst and unnecessary expense at best.


20 posted on 01/21/2013 11:02:22 PM PST by entropy12 (The republic is doomed when people figure out they can get free stuff by voting democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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]

To: marktwain; MamaDearest; Lumper20; mosaicwolf; SkyPilot; ZULU; overbore; mazda77; justiceseeker93; ..

Starting with everyone in the White House and then everyone in Congress, how many do you think would pass an FBI or US military top security clearance? My estimate is very few, like you can count on two hands ya think?


41 posted on 01/22/2013 7:46:35 AM PST by ExTexasRedhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PizzaDriver

Yep same here.

They will go to whom I want them to go.

Nothing else.


42 posted on 01/22/2013 7:47:24 AM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
LOL 42 posts when I make this one and nobody has observed that the idiot's name is FLAKE. Like he's sure living up to his name! Too bad he's in Arizona (where I hope he's voted out soon), because he'd fit right in with the rest of the granola crowd in California, you know, the fruits and nuts need the FLAKES!
43 posted on 01/22/2013 8:29:37 AM PST by ExSoldier (Stand up and be counted... OR LINE UP AND BE NUMBERED...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

First, local gun laws have no meaning. New Yorkers can go to neighboring states and buy all the guns they can afford. ANy one with criminal background can go there and buy guns.

I made it clear I support background checks but NOT registration. They are two different animals. Registration means you have to declare exact gun you purchased along with serial number etc.

I have absolutely no problem if they want to do my background check. I wish it was done for every gun purchase. The FBI already has a national data base of criminals. Why not use it?


44 posted on 01/22/2013 9:05:01 AM PST by entropy12 (The republic is doomed when people figure out they can get free stuff by voting democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice

You know, this started out as dark humor, but maybe we’re on to something here?

I’d rather not have ANY 4473’s with the buyer’s name and the make model and serial number of the firearm (the whole idea is offensive), but this at the heart of the “big lie” about “universal background checks”.

Why NOT tie it in to other civil rights? Why not push to gut the very registration scheme that gun grabbers are pushing for? Why not use this as a bit of political jui-jitsu to try to roll back a little bit of the regulatory apparat that always seeks to insinuate itself into our lives at every level?

It won’t work, I’m not that much of a polyanna, but it would be fun to watch the statists try to wriggle off of their own hook for a while.


45 posted on 01/22/2013 10:41:06 AM PST by absalom01 (You should do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, and you should never wish to do less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: HiJinx

He needs to back off.


46 posted on 01/22/2013 12:07:19 PM PST by Bradís Gramma (Psalm 83)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

You’re assuming the ones deciding the check are fair.
The point of the 2ndA is when they’re not.


47 posted on 01/22/2013 12:15:27 PM PST by ctdonath2 (End of debate. Your move.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ez

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

Worth repeating.


48 posted on 01/22/2013 12:17:27 PM PST by ctdonath2 (End of debate. Your move.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: entropy12
This is not, and never has been, about keeping criminals from having guns. It has always been about reducing the number of people who legally own guns to a small enough number to make them politically insignificant. All of these registration, background checks, waiting periods, bans on "Saturday night specials, and other "gun control" laws have not had any measurable effect on crime rates.
When gun control first became an important national issue in the 1960s, there was almost no research worth noting on the subject. Partisans on both sides of the debate had hardly more ammunition than intuitions and bumper-sticker slogans.

The man most responsible for the change in the intellectual terms of the gun debate was Jimmy Carter, or, more precisely, the grant-review team that Carter appointed to the National Institute of Justice. Intending to build the case for comprehensive federal gun restrictions, the Carter administration handed out a major gun-control research grant in 1978 to sociology professor James D. Wright and his colleagues Peter Rossi and Kathleen Daly. Wright was already on record as favoring much stricter controls, and he and his colleagues were highly regarded sociologists. Rossi, a University of Massachusetts professor, would later become president of the American Sociology Association. Wright, who formerly served as director of the Social and Demographic Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, now teaches at Tulane. Daly is now at the University of Michigan.

Wright and his colleagues were asked to survey the state of research regarding the efficacy of gun control, presumably to show that gun control worked and that America needed more of it. But when the researchers produced their report for the National Institute of Justice in 1982, they delivered a document quite different from the one they had expected to write. Carefully reviewing all existing research, the three scholars found no persuasive scholarly evidence that America's 20,000 gun-control laws had reduced criminal violence. For example, the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, which banned most interstate gun sales, had no discernible impact on the criminal acquisition of guns from other states. Washington, D.C.'s ban on the ownership of handguns that had not already been registered in the District was not linked to any reduction in gun crime. Even Detroit's law providing mandatory sentences for felonies committed with a gun was found to have no effect on gun-crime patterns, in part because judges would often reduce the sentence for the underlying offense in order to balance out the mandatory two-year extra sentence for use of a gun.

If local gun laws have no meaning, why do we not see New Yorkers openly carrying holstered handguns all throughout New York City?

These laws do have effects... only on those who obey the laws. They do not reduce crime.

49 posted on 01/22/2013 12:27:25 PM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ExTexasRedhead

Oh I don’t know..... I have one and I’m a right wing extremist! /s


50 posted on 01/22/2013 12:31:00 PM PST by Forty-Niner (The barely bare berry bear formerly known as Ursus Arctos Horribilis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 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