Do you support background checks at gun shows?
I don't know why Wayne had such a problem with the question. I would have made it simple for the Senator.
Should have replied NRA supports background checks for all sales going through a licensed dealer. Private sales are regulated by the states. We support the States that want to allow private sales and we also support the States that want to regulate them.
I'd take your question up with the State legislatures Senator. We don't believe Federal laws that violate the constitution should be the end all game plan if the states want to take over that area of regulation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSH-zgt0n3w
Should have replied NRA supports background checks for all sales going through a licensed dealer. Private sales are regulated by the states. We support the States that want to allow private sales and we also support the States that want to regulate them.
I'd take your question up with the State legislatures Senator. We don't believe Federal laws that violate the constitution should be the end all game plan if the states want to take over that area of regulation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSH-zgt0n3w
0
-
quote:Originally posted by andrewsw16
An alternative would be to open the NICS system to FREE use by the general PUBLIC as a web site. Even as an optional use system, I think a lot of sellers in a FTF deal would make use of it.
I agree. I posted that as a "No Buy List" similar to a "No Fly List" used by the TSA. Anonymous and all you need is a state ID or SSN. All it would say is Yea or Nay.
Simple enough.
COB0 -
Contrary to most here I would support background checks on all sales provided no records kept on the gun and that the individual has the option of doing the check himself for a nominal fee. We can currently do that in Illinois for private sales at gun shows. Seems to me to be a good option. 0 -
Well, we can't open access to NICS to everyone; federal law specifically limits it's use to: dealer transfers, pawn redemptions, & assisting ATF.
BUT, there's no reason that the data base accessed by NICS can't be made available to the public on the Internet for any use. Same thing for the stolen gun data base. (No, I know what you are thinking, I did NOT go to Harvard Law School.)
Neal0 -
GUYS---You need to get this right once and for all time.
THE GOVT HAS NO RIGHT TO GET IN MY GUN BUSINESS--OR YOURS0 -
No. I do not agree with any infringement on the Second Amendment. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by shilowar
I am fine with individuals conducting private business privately without oversight from the government.
Amen brother.0 -
quote:Originally posted by He Dog
OK, let's make it more interesting: Tulsa show a non-ffl seller is offering me a Walther, not C&R. He is not from Oklahoma, nor am I. I did not buy it.
Gunshow loophole?
OK to buy?
That's already an illegal sale. Making it double illegal won't change anything.0 -
Felons and criminally insane should not be allowed guns...
How do background checks anywhere prevent those folk from getting guns from decent people?0 -
i hope the only reason you did not buy it was, it was priced to high[;)]quote:Originally posted by He Dog
OK, let's make it more interesting: Tulsa show a non-ffl seller is offering me a Walther, not C&R. He is not from Oklahoma, nor am I. I did not buy it.
Gunshow loophole?
OK to buy?0 -
quote:Contrary to most here I would support background checks on all sales provided no records kept on the gun and that the individual has the option of doing the check himself for a nominal fee. We can currently do that in Illinois for private sales at gun shows. Seems to me to be a good option.
Slumlord I think you may be on shakey ground suggesting anything that originates from Ilinois. Your states record on violent crime speaks for itself!0 -
[Contrary to most here I would support background checks on all sales provided no records kept on the gun and that the individual has the option of doing the check himself for a nominal fee. We can currently do that in Illinois for private sales at gun shows. Seems to me to be a good option]
Slumlord I think you may be on shakey ground suggesting anything that originates from Ilinois. Your states record on violent crime speaks for itself!0 -
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
I don't know why Wayne had such a problem with the question. I would have made it simple for the Senator.
Should have replied NRA supports background checks for all sales going through a licensed dealer. Private sales are regulated by the states. We support the States that want to allow private sales and we also support the States that want to regulate them.
That would have been a very good answer. Wayne is not a good communicator. THe NRA needs a better spokesperson.0 -
The gun grabbers are arguing that the NRA is being unreasonable and it is "no big deal" because the average nic checks are averaging only a few minutes. Do they understand that private parties will need to find a dealer to complete the transaction? Or do they think anyone can just pick up the phone and run a background check whenever they want? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Buck E
[Contrary to most here I would support background checks on all sales provided no records kept on the gun and that the individual has the option of doing the check himself for a nominal fee. We can currently do that in Illinois for private sales at gun shows. Seems to me to be a good option]
Slumlord I think you may be on shakey ground suggesting anything that originates from Ilinois. Your states record on violent crime speaks for itself!
I have recently been enlightened on Illinois gun laws.
What would be the point in keeping records on guns when you keep records on gun OWNERS, FOID.
If you posses a gun you had better have your papers in order.0 -
I do not support ANY background checks for the purchase or transfer of any weapon which is not FULL AUTO!!! [V]
I have been a licenced dealer for 20+ years and in LE for 30+ years have not seen any proof that background checks have accomplished any good what so ever!!![:(!]0 -
Universal background checks are backdoor registration. As long as the government knows what you have, they can confiscate it later. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
I do not support ANY background checks for the purchase or transfer of any weapon which is not FULL AUTO!!! [V]
I have been a licenced dealer for 20+ years and in LE for 30+ years have not seen any proof that background checks have accomplished any good what so ever!!![:(!]
Good to hear, Jim.
Finally, an ex-LEO who agrees that released felons should have full restoration of rights. Perhaps I have been too hasty in dismissing your protestations of reality.
While I will continue to disagree that there is anything reasonable or Constitutional in restricting full-auto and not semi-auto weapons, I will put that aside for now and accept something I had here-to-fore misunderstood about your position.0 -
I not only do not support background checks for non-ffl fire arms transfers, I object to the current background check system we have.
I also object to any firearm registration of any kind, be it handgun, semi auto or full auto.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
I do not support ANY background checks for the purchase or transfer of any weapon which is not FULL AUTO!!! [V]
I have been a licenced dealer for 20+ years and in LE for 30+ years have not seen any proof that background checks have accomplished any good what so ever!!![:(!]
Good to hear, Jim.
Finally, an ex-LEO who agrees that released felons should have full restoration of rights. Perhaps I have been too hasty in dismissing your protestations of reality.
While I will continue to disagree that there is anything reasonable or Constitutional in restricting full-auto and not semi-auto weapons, I will put that aside for now and accept something I had here-to-fore misunderstood about your position.
Putting words in mouth again.[}:)]
I was discussing background checks, felons![;)]0 -
quote: Do they understand that private parties will need to find a dealer to complete the transaction? Or do they think anyone can just pick up the phone and run a background check whenever they want?
Just a fact check . Here in CT, State approval is required for all private handgun transfers with paperwork including the SN submitted to the State and the local police of both buyer & seller. Individual Calls the State police, they run a NICS and give you a release number. All at no charge. No dealer involvement0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
I do not support ANY background checks for the purchase or transfer of any weapon which is not FULL AUTO!!! [V]
I have been a licenced dealer for 20+ years and in LE for 30+ years have not seen any proof that background checks have accomplished any good what so ever!!![:(!]
Good to hear, Jim.
Finally, an ex-LEO who agrees that released felons should have full restoration of rights. Perhaps I have been too hasty in dismissing your protestations of reality.
While I will continue to disagree that there is anything reasonable or Constitutional in restricting full-auto and not semi-auto weapons, I will put that aside for now and accept something I had here-to-fore misunderstood about your position.
Putting words in mouth again.[}:)]
I was discussing background checks, felons![;)]
Words are better than feet, I guess.
Please clarify your position.
1. Should convicted felons be permitted to purchase firearms after they have served their time?
2. If they are barred, how are they to be identified to firearms sellers?
3. If they are barred and a transaction occurs, is the crime committed by the seller, the buyer, or both?
4. Absent background checks, and if the seller is guilty of a crime for the transaction, how can that seller ensure that the buyer is not an ex-felon?
From your response, it seems that you are against background checks for the law abiding, but still wish it to be illegal for ex-cons to purchase firearms.
If I have misunderstood you, please correct me. If I have not misunderstood you, I am curious as to how you wish to implement your Utopian plans.0 -
Background checks in my opinion only stop felons from by from dealers. They will get guns if they want them. By definition they do not abide by the law, so no law will stop them. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by chollagardens
quote:Mr. Perfect posted;
quote:
Originally posted by chollagardens
quote:NICS
Stops felons ect from buying firearms = good
Can you give me directions to the fantasy world you live in? I google mapped it, but it couldn't find the address.
There are very few absolutes. It is a tool, it is effective to a certain point. If a idea dosn't work it will die. If it does then it will take on a life of it's own. Sorry my idea didn't apeal to you.
I'm open to hear a way to solve both anti gun tyranny and people killing little kids etal.
Look at my earlier post. But assuming you are unwilling/incapable:
Either keep the dangerous locked up or make them dead. It's quite simple really.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
I do not support ANY background checks for the purchase or transfer of any weapon which is not FULL AUTO!!! [V]
I have been a licenced dealer for 20+ years and in LE for 30+ years have not seen any proof that background checks have accomplished any good what so ever!!![:(!]
Good to hear, Jim.
Finally, an ex-LEO who agrees that released felons should have full restoration of rights. Perhaps I have been too hasty in dismissing your protestations of reality.
While I will continue to disagree that there is anything reasonable or Constitutional in restricting full-auto and not semi-auto weapons, I will put that aside for now and accept something I had here-to-fore misunderstood about your position.
Putting words in mouth again.[}:)]
I was discussing background checks, felons![;)]
Words are better than feet, I guess.
Please clarify your position.
1. Should convicted felons be permitted to purchase firearms after they have served their time?
2. If they are barred, how are they to be identified to firearms sellers?
3. If they are barred and a transaction occurs, is the crime committed by the seller, the buyer, or both?
4. Absent background checks, and if the seller is guilty of a crime for the transaction, how can that seller ensure that the buyer is not an ex-felon?
From your response, it seems that you are against background checks for the law abiding, but still wish it to be illegal for ex-cons to purchase firearms.
If I have misunderstood you, please correct me. If I have not misunderstood you, I am curious as to how you wish to implement your Utopian plans.
Those convicted of 'persons' crimes should not be allowed to legally 'rearm'. But those convicted of 'property' crimes only should be allowed to be armed after they have completed their sentence. Some states have a time limit after their release before they are allowed to own weapons.
As for enforcement. When this BS started in 1968 you were required to sign a 4473 swearing you were not a convicted felon, drug user, and etc. If you were caught with a gun and it was found you lied on the 4473 you were suppose to be arrested and prosecuted! BUT THIS NEVER HAPPENED!!!!![:(!] Back to enforcement of the laws on the books. The point is the background check serve no realistic purpose WHAT SO EVER!! [V] These 'checks' imply that you are 'guilty' until you prove you are not!!! We need to leave the responsible people alone and prosecute the criminals/victimizers!!![:(]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Those convicted of 'persons' crimes should not be allowed to legally 'rearm'. But those convicted of 'property' crimes only should be allowed to be armed after they have completed their sentence. Some states have a time limit after their release before they are allowed to own weapons.
As for enforcement. When this BS started in 1968 you were required to sign a 4473 swearing you were not a convicted felon, drug user, and etc. If you were caught with a gun and it was found you lied on the 4473 you were suppose to be arrested and prosecuted! BUT THIS NEVER HAPPENED!!!!![:(!] Back to enforcement of the laws on the books. The point is the background check serve no realistic purpose WHAT SO EVER!! [V] These 'checks' imply that you are 'guilty' until you prove you are not!!! We need to leave the responsible people alone and prosecute the criminals/victimizers!!![:(]
Slow down, Jim. I can hear you without the soapbox.
What is your current position?
A. Do you believe that we should set the clock back to 1968?
(No background checks, but all buyers must sign a contract/form confirming that they can legally purchase a firearm.)
Where is this form sent, or is it simply for the protection of the dealer?
The dealer, then has zero responsibility, so long as he has this form. Does he need to maintain these forms for every gun he has ever sold?
Does this include private sales?
Where is this form sent, or is it simply for the protection of the seller?
What is actually accomplished other than the creation of a paper trail back to the last legitimate owner?
It seems to me that this arrangement only adds a fraud charge to a person arrested for a gun crime, and creates the same data base that is desired by those who want universal background checks.
Can you help with what the actual difference really is?
Or B: Are you advocating going back to before 1968 where the form did not exist?
Again, please correct me if I am wrong, but this is how I see your position:
You want ex-cons to be limited either temporarily or permanently, based upon the type of crime committed. While I don't agree, I understand.
Do you put the burden of compliance upon the ex-con?
Or, do you put the burden upon the rest of us by having to verify our legitimacy via documentation that provides a paper trail?
Some (myself included) would argue that the background check is an infringement of secondary importance to the paper trail.0 -
It seems to me NICS checks have become widely accepted. What's next 20+ years from now? "Assault weapon" possession being completely illegal/a felony becoming widely accepted also? Then handguns, then long guns until we're down to a sling shot and stones?
Maybe I misread but does the second ammendment say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed after a background/NICS check"?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Hunter Mag
It seems to me NICS checks have become widely accepted. What's next 20+ years from now? "Assault weapon" possession being completely illegal/a felony becoming widely accepted also? Then handguns, then long guns until we're down to a sling shot and stones?
Maybe I misread but does the second ammendment say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed after a background/NICS check"?
Read the Heller Decision.
Scalia basically states that it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be denied. Governments have the power to mandate the registration of firearms, to mandate the licensing of individuals who wish to keep or bear firearms, and to establish regulations as to which types of firearms can be kept or borne.
So yes, currently the 2nd Amendment does state that a background check can be required.
The amendment has been rendered virtually meaningless.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Those convicted of 'persons' crimes should not be allowed to legally 'rearm'. But those convicted of 'property' crimes only should be allowed to be armed after they have completed their sentence. Some states have a time limit after their release before they are allowed to own weapons.
As for enforcement. When this BS started in 1968 you were required to sign a 4473 swearing you were not a convicted felon, drug user, and etc. If you were caught with a gun and it was found you lied on the 4473 you were suppose to be arrested and prosecuted! BUT THIS NEVER HAPPENED!!!!![:(!] Back to enforcement of the laws on the books. The point is the background check serve no realistic purpose WHAT SO EVER!! [V] These 'checks' imply that you are 'guilty' until you prove you are not!!! We need to leave the responsible people alone and prosecute the criminals/victimizers!!![:(]
Slow down, Jim. I can hear you without the soapbox.
What is your current position?
A. Do you believe that we should set the clock back to 1968?
(No background checks, but all buyers must sign a contract/form confirming that they can legally purchase a firearm.)
Where is this form sent, or is it simply for the protection of the dealer?
The dealer, then has zero responsibility, so long as he has this form. Does he need to maintain these forms for every gun he has ever sold?
Does this include private sales?
Where is this form sent, or is it simply for the protection of the seller?
What is actually accomplished other than the creation of a paper trail back to the last legitimate owner?
It seems to me that this arrangement only adds a fraud charge to a person arrested for a gun crime, and creates the same data base that is desired by those who want universal background checks.
Can you help with what the actual difference really is?
Or B: Are you advocating going back to before 1968 where the form did not exist?
Again, please correct me if I am wrong, but this is how I see your position:
You want ex-cons to be limited either temporarily or permanently, based upon the type of crime committed. While I don't agree, I understand.
Do you put the burden of compliance upon the ex-con?
Or, do you put the burden upon the rest of us by having to verify our legitimacy via documentation that provides a paper trail?
Some (myself included) would argue that the background check is an infringement of secondary importance to the paper trail.
No, we should set the clock back to about 1910 or even further!
What I am saying about the Ominous Crime Control Act of 1968 is they (the progressives) were using the same a old tired arguments they are using today and they keep using to push use further down the slippery slope. [:(] This 'act' was passed in the interest of 'controlling crime', which MANY thought to be their true agenda. But as we all know they, the progressives, will not stop until they disarm us completely!!! This not about 'gun control', it is about 'people control'!!![:(!]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Those convicted of 'persons' crimes should not be allowed to legally 'rearm'. But those convicted of 'property' crimes only should be allowed to be armed after they have completed their sentence. Some states have a time limit after their release before they are allowed to own weapons.
As for enforcement. When this BS started in 1968 you were required to sign a 4473 swearing you were not a convicted felon, drug user, and etc. If you were caught with a gun and it was found you lied on the 4473 you were suppose to be arrested and prosecuted! BUT THIS NEVER HAPPENED!!!!![:(!] Back to enforcement of the laws on the books. The point is the background check serve no realistic purpose WHAT SO EVER!! [V] These 'checks' imply that you are 'guilty' until you prove you are not!!! We need to leave the responsible people alone and prosecute the criminals/victimizers!!![:(]
Slow down, Jim. I can hear you without the soapbox.
What is your current position?
A. Do you believe that we should set the clock back to 1968?
(No background checks, but all buyers must sign a contract/form confirming that they can legally purchase a firearm.)
Where is this form sent, or is it simply for the protection of the dealer?
The dealer, then has zero responsibility, so long as he has this form. Does he need to maintain these forms for every gun he has ever sold?
Does this include private sales?
Where is this form sent, or is it simply for the protection of the seller?
What is actually accomplished other than the creation of a paper trail back to the last legitimate owner?
It seems to me that this arrangement only adds a fraud charge to a person arrested for a gun crime, and creates the same data base that is desired by those who want universal background checks.
Can you help with what the actual difference really is?
Or B: Are you advocating going back to before 1968 where the form did not exist?
Again, please correct me if I am wrong, but this is how I see your position:
You want ex-cons to be limited either temporarily or permanently, based upon the type of crime committed. While I don't agree, I understand.
Do you put the burden of compliance upon the ex-con?
Or, do you put the burden upon the rest of us by having to verify our legitimacy via documentation that provides a paper trail?
Some (myself included) would argue that the background check is an infringement of secondary importance to the paper trail.
No, we should set the clock back to about 1910 or even further!
What I am saying about the Ominous Crime Control Act of 1968 is they (the progressives) were using the same a old tired arguments they are using today and they keep using to push use further down the slippery slope. [:(] This 'act' was passed in the interest of 'controlling crime', which MANY thought to be their true agenda. But as we all know they, the progressives, will not stop until they disarm us completely!!! This not about 'gun control', it is about 'people control'!!![:(!]
Good plan going with the duck and run approach.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Read the Heller Decision.
Scalia basically states that it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be denied. Governments have the power to mandate the registration of firearms, to mandate the licensing of individuals who wish to keep or bear firearms, and to establish regulations as to which types of firearms can be kept or borne.
So yes, currently the 2nd Amendment does state that a background check can be required.
The amendment has been rendered virtually meaningless.
No, your desire to remain anonymous in all possible transactions has been rendered useless.
It will be hard to preserve the exemption for personal sales without a formal background check, but I think it may be done.
In return, I would be looking to permanently exempt all firearms now over 100 years old.
I don't understand the concept of a desire being rendered useless. Obsolete in the eyes of many, perhaps, but not useless. Knowledge is still power, and a paper trail creates the means to knowledge.
That said, if Scalia can cite, in a SCOTUS decision, governmental powers of infringement upon a right that is specifically not to be infringed, the freedom of the individual to exercise the underlying right has been substantially lost.
I also don't understand the concept of using the term 'exemption' when discussing background checks for private sales. Currently a significant number of states do not require a background check for private sales. That these states have not gone the extra mile and forced their citizens to submit to a Federal policy beyond the legitimate reach of the Federal Government is not an exemption. It is simply a continuation of an historic norm.
Lastly, I also cannot understand the mindset that would trade the freedoms of others for an individual want. It is that short-sighted and self-centered mentality that has allowed for the re-definition of the 2nd Amendment over the past 80 years.
If anyone wishes to live in a State where universal background checks are mandated, they are free to choose any number of states that have already imposed that condition. This, apparently, is not good enough for them, however. Constitutional issues aside, what possible justification is there to impose one's restrictive beliefs on the entire citizenry when the opportunity to live under them already exists?0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
104 comments