Posted on 02/03/2013 9:43:35 AM PST by TurboZamboni
Among comments to my last piece, “Lautenberg gun show bill as bad as expected,” several were from well-meaning gun owners who honestly questioned why S. 843 – ostensibly submitted to close the “gun show loophole” – is really so bad.
A typical and knowledgeable comment went like this:
“I am a very pro-gun person. I own a couple of rifles and I will never support any [‘assault weapon’ ban]. I don't even support the ‘86 [McClure-Volkmer] automatic ban. But background checks should be required for any and every sale. If that means transferring it at the dealer, then fine.
"But any kind of government-kept record of who owns what I am strongly opposed to. Make the bill less ridiculous and get rid of all of the registration clauses and I will not oppose it.”
While reasonable and well-intentioned, the argument contains a presumption which, unfortunately, rarely pertains in politics: It presumes the intentions of the bill are honest. Below are the main three reasons why legislation purporting to require “background checks” is unacceptable.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
If you need permission from the fedguv to exercise a right, then it isn’t really a right.
I must have missed the background check segment in the 2nd amendment.
It is none of the government’s business who owns what guns. When the government wants to find out, that is a sign of totalitarian tendencies, and that is the point where it needs to be firmly quashed.
The way the feds are registering guns today is both illegal, and they don’t care that it is illegal, and is little known by the public.
That is, since the feds are not *supposed* to keep background check information, they require stores that sell guns to do so. Then, at their leisure, they go in and collect that, not “background check information”, but “Federal Firearms License information”. The same data. And they have zero requirements to ever destroy it.
So in effect, the “gun show loophole” of private sales is now the *only* way to get a legal gun that is not registered. Unless, of course, you buy it with a credit card, since that information is also cross checked by the government.
A no-buy list of felons and mentally ill is OK.
Past that it not the business of government who owns what....
Registration is indeed 1st step to confiscation.
New laws? Answer NO
1. It is a myth that most people can buy guns at gun shows without background checks. Only ‘private sales’ don’t need them in many states. Almost every gun sale has a background check.
2. The background check requirements being proposed and in some states would eliminate firearm transfers even between families without a background check. For example, a grandpa can’t give his grandson an old family .22 rifle without the grandson having a background check.
3. The proposed requirements would require a uniform national background check which would most likely have to require with the most stringent states such as New Jersey. So now, buying a gun in Texas that used to take less than 30 minutes because we are sophisticated and can run checks quickly, would take the 60 days it does in New Jersey.
Exactly correct. Private sales are the safety valve that prevents background checks to become registration.
A number of states have made it illegal to possess an unregistered handgun, so cash purchases of a handgun at a gunshow does not prevent prosecution for failure to register the handgun in those jurisdictions. This situationdemonstrates why firearms registrations have in evry case led to firearns confiscations and crminalization of the possession of firearms.
Actually it needed to be stopped the day before they stopped handing them back to prison inmates upon release.
If they’re too dangerous to own a gun they shouldn’t be released from prison.
Shouldn’t pretty much anyone who doesn’t pass the background check be in jail?
I am at a gun show with a for sale sign sticking out of the barrel of my AR-15.
A buyer approaches we agree on a price then say. To avoid this silly background crap, I'll meet you at Applebees parking lot down the street and we will conclude the sale.
Good idea. Is it legal? Of course we are not at a gun show. You never saw me today and I never saw you.
And to think, privacy applies to abortions but the asshats want to invade privacy if you own a gun? That’s messed up to say the least. Still trying to find where in the BOR abortions are covered as a right not to be interfered with. Guess I’ll keep searchin’. Kind of think I’m not gonna’ find it.
Perform a humanitarian act today. Send sandy fluke some condoms. PLEASE. We don’t want her pro-creating. Of course if she were to become preggers, she’d demand we pay for an abortion and demand privacy.
Molon labe.
no new laws, every single one is a step towards confiscation.
Time to roll a few back.
Of course. Except the political class.
Thanks for the post.
Why the strong Democrat opposition to background checks on voters (outstanding warrants, illegally in the country, multiple registrations, etc.)?
F-The-Left.
How about we get background checks for every editor, publisher and reader of the Press.
Because drug gangs smuggle guns, too, and have their own “background checks” to make sure you’re not a cop or rival or a rube that they can just rip off.
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.