Their solution:
Posted on 06/01/2018 11:10:05 AM PDT by richardb72
Gun control advocates seem willing to latch onto anything they can use to justify more stringent laws. They were at it again in the wake of the recent Santa Fe High School shooting. In the New York Times last Thursday, Nicholas Kristof pushed for 10 supposedly “modest” gun control measures.
Everyone wants to do something to stop mass public shootings. Kristof is right that fewer school doors aren’t the solution. Schools have as many entrances as they do for a reason (such as escaping fires). One door with a metal detector won't help if the guard is the first person killed, and lining up a large number of students at one entrance creates an attractive target for killers to attack there.
But we also have to be careful that the gun control laws primarily disarm criminals, not law-abiding citizens. There has to be reasonable evidence that the regulations reduce crime. Let’s take a look at these proposals.
Universal background checks
Two points supposedly support background checks on private transfers of guns. A survey showing that 22% of U.S. guns obtained in the last two years were acquired without a background check. But this is mainly a result of inheritances (presumably, mainly within families) and, to a lesser extent, gifts. No evidence is provided that guns acquired through inheritance are commonly used in crime. The survey claims that 16% of people bought a gun at a store without undergoing a background check, but this is illegal everywhere in the U.S. It is not a credible claim.
Other surveys show 90% of people support these checks. But when these laws were put on the ballots in Nevada and Maine in 2016, they had a hard time breaking 50%, despite Michael Bloomberg outspending his opponents by 3-to-1 or 6-to-1margins.
Closing the Charleston Loophole....
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Their solution:
The gun dealers calls to run your name and ssn, at that point the government knows you have a gun, it’s pretty easy to locate who has guns then. If you can walk into a gun store you should be able to buy whatever you want with no phone call to anyone.
No, they do not. You might have bought it as a gift for someone, or after having the background check run, decide not to purchase. There is uncertainty involved. And the greater time that passes, the greater the uncertainty becomes.
And background check data are, BY LAW, required to be purged after a relatively short time. Not so with the 4473. Of course, the feds "could" cheat and keep the data, but they cannot legally use it as justification for a search warrant.
With "universal background checks" (actually checks on all transfers), that uncertainty disappears.
In the state I live in you can’t tranfer or sell any gun without an ffl doing a background check.
Do you believe they purge the rolls ? They record and save every phone call, email, everything you can think of, but they will purge the rolls, come on.
They are required by law to do so. Any use of such information IN A COURT OF LAW would be disallowed. Yes, some part of government may, illegally, compile such a record, but doing so is a crime. And perpetrating a wide gun seizure using such records would probably start Revolutionary War II.
What state?? I live in Washington, which has just implemented such by referendum. fortunately, I will be retiring to Texas in the near future and won't be impacted by it.
It would start a revolution, no doubt, at least I hope so. To your other point about a court of law, and laws in general they only apply to you and I and other mere mortals, look at the things going on with the deep state, all the laws broken by numerous government employees, there are two tiers of justice in America, hopefully president Trump can straighten things out.
[No, the 4473 sheets are not collected by the government but are retained by the seller.]
Until he goes out of business. Then they are turned in to BATFE.
Simple. violation of “shall not be infringed” and ex post facto. “shall” is a legal term that means “must, absolutely, and totally”. ex post facto means that if you had or did something yesterday, no where in this government is it allowed for you to retroactively make that owning or doing something yesterday punishable or illegal in America. Anyone who does so should be stopped, and or “removed with extreme prejudice.” Of course, to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms is a crime because of the word “shall.” Americans are uneducated and ignorant of the truths of our countries’ laws.
How well did prohibition of booze solve the problems it promised to solve?
A knife or a blunt force weapon like a hammer is a more common murder weapon than a rifle, not a handgun.
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.