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 ...
There already ARE background checks on members of academia and the press but occasionally a conservative gets through anyway.
IMHO, Here’s what’s coming.....When you go to get your hunting license, you’ll have to bring ALL your guns. They will inspect them, test fire them (bullet bank) register any numbers and keep them until you pass a background test.
Depends....Have you ever been caught for speeding?
Irresponsible behavior will be one of the criteria.
No gun for you...
The aim of all gun control is confiscation.
There is no rule of law now.
We have jumped the shark.
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but the quantity and complexity of the laws exceed the intellectual grasp of a single individual. It's a Catch 22 situation. We'd be best served by a comprehensive reform of all of our laws, except that the process would be hijacked and we'd be worse off at the end of it.
I want to push for harsher laws regarding malice of the press and less restriction on having to prove it. Let's put the onus on them like they do on us: accuse them of it and then they must prove their innocence!
We must hold on to this picture for a sign in case hillary runs again.
As someone else asked on this site a while ago, why is the SERIAL NUMBER and MODEL NUMBER needed for a background check? It seems to me that you should ONLY check the person and be done with it. If he buys 10 weapons, 5 weapons, 1 weapon, or none, nothing is gained with serial and model numbers...unless someone is trying to build up a database.
Agree. Do a background check without the dealer having to maintain any form and no serial or model numbers given for the check and unless I'm missing something else I would not have a problem with universal. By the way this would include buying from a dealer.
“Agree. Do a background check without the dealer having to maintain any form and no serial or model numbers given for the check and unless I’m missing something else I WOULD NOT HAVE A PROBLEM with universal. By the way this would include buying from a dealer. “
I didn’t want to go there, but the poster that mentioned it was like you, good with it (without the gun ID info). I agree...it would be good to actually weed out the nutcases, without establishing a database.
The states’ CCW lists are legally protected from the federal government’s scrutiny.
Yet the instructor in my class said that Kentucky had already been approached by Big Sis for its list. And was refused. For the time being.
Could it be that we can’t trust the word of our betters in DC?
They don’t need the gun info. You get BG checked, they will assume you bought a gun. When the time comes, they will come after *anyone* that has had a BG check and demand guns.
A whore that says she loves you is more trustworthy than our federal government.
It has been suggested by some that folks should own a “throw away” gun or two to hand over when the jack boots come to the door, while carefully hiding the rest.
Background check - YES
Registration of Gun Owners - NO
Registration of Guns - NO
Register Sheep, Not Citizens.
The fact is we are not going to stop mass murder entirely, EVER. May as well say it, defenseless sheep will not survive, unarmed.
2+2 is simply still four, no matter how many other ideas you exhaust.
This has happened on the Federal level as the Examiner reported here. It's pretty much a case of "Remember your 1968 misdemeanor conviction? BOOM it's now a felony!"
No misdemeanor actually became a felony. It is an unfortunate mismatch in terminology between some state and federal statutes. At it's simplest, Federal laws prohibit purchase by any person convicted of an offense "punishable by imprisonment for more than one year." It does not say felony or misdemeanor. Some states, mostly back east, have (or had) misdemeanor offenses with indeterminate sentences. In other words the maximum sentence (for a misdemeanor) could have been longer than a year.
As I recall reading this all started because of some overzealous junior G-man who was upset at being assigned to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System in WV and took it upon himself to decline the purchase despite long standing but undocumented policy to the contrary. The anti-gun powers that be decided it was a good idea and it took off and here we are. Criteria Creep
Here in California every firearm transaction except long guns over 50 years old must go through an FFL. It goes to the DoJ in Sacramento who runs a much more thorough check than the Feds. So what happened when ex-San Francisco DA and anti-gun zealot Kamala Harris became State Attorney General? Guys who had been buying guns for years with no trouble started getting denied. The California law clearly states "convictions" and she creeped it to "arrests" where the outcome is not in the system and demanding proof of the dismissal. So a lot of guys are running around trying to get court papers frpom the 70's and 80's and guess what? For dismissals, they trashed all the paperwork years ago.
Now thanks to another quirk of California law known as "underground regulation" this will nipped in he bud once the wheels of justice grind, but they grind slow and there is no Federal equivalent. Their ultimate grand plan is to "creep" every gun owner into a prohibited class and this is how it starts.
Which others of the Bill Of Rights must I take out a permit or a license to practice?
“It has been suggested by some that folks should own a “throw away” gun or two to hand over when the jack boots come to the door, while carefully hiding the rest.”
That’s the point...as long as they don’t have serial numbers they will either have to believe you or do some serious searching.
They will not believe you, that's my point, they will assume everyone is "guilty". And they will do some serious searching. Once they force themselves in, they aren't going be content looking only in your closets and dresser drawers.
The 4th Amendment is the big deal about background checks.
Without any evidence of wrongdoing (or intent thereto) suitable for asking a judge for a warrant, there is no grounds for government interference in an otherwise legal transaction.
“They will not believe you, that’s my point, they will assume everyone is “guilty”. And they will do some serious searching. Once they force themselves in, they aren’t going be content looking only in your closets and dresser drawers.”
I hear you, but they will have quite a task, without any clue what to look for. Here in Texas at least half of the homes have guns, so the having the list of who might have guns only has slightly more value than a driver license list...if that, since many already have guns and will not be on that list, hopefully.
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.