Universal Background Checks for gun purchases

[dgapilot]

If you want UBC, the only way that would be acceptable would be for all persons 18 years of age to register for selective service, and a complete background check done at that time. The background check would not be linked to a gun purchase or any other activity, just "coming of age". Not sure how it could be done after that, perhaps tied to voting or drivers license, but that doesn't work since not everyone votes or drives a car.

 

[Armati]

I am not sure why we just don't get ahead of this nonsense.

We should be offering up an operators license essentially just like a driver's license.

The CMP uses a good system where members must be in the military or the member of a club. This should take care of any training arguments.

Once a licensed operator, you should be able to CCW anywhere in the US and order guns through the mail.

Here anti-2A, we closed your gunshow loophole and provided UBC.

Our side is always playing defense. I will never understand this.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[swinokur]

But not a Federal license right?

if that's what you mean,, no thanks. A state issued one would be more palatable.

 

[Armati]

But not a Federal license right?

if that's what you mean,, no thanks. A state issued one would be more palatable.

The devil is always in the details. Just off the top of my head:

A Federal process much like the CMP, or sending your C&R paperwork to the ATF. In fact, there might be an argument for turning over the licensing to the CMP and reinstating their funding for this purpose.

An individual state process. However in the interest of hijacking the language of the debate, turn over the "regulation" of the "militia" to the National Guard of each state. Instead of licensing coming from the State Police, it would come from the NG. Funding would be provided to support the activity. In the particular case of MD, the Militia Law recognizes an Organized Militia (the MD National Guard) and the Unorganized Militia (all citizens under arms). The framework already exists and smells distinctly Constitutional.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[T'Challa]

But not a Federal license right?

if that's what you mean,, no thanks. A state issued one would be more palatable.

Why not a Fed card? Most people in MD can't get a permit. I'm sure that Marylanders would take a fed card if it meant they could exercise their 2A rights. UBC should be the NICS check and a warrant check.

 

[swinokur]

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I'm not in favor of giving the overreaching Federal Govt more power than they wield already.

 

[Armati]

I'm not in favor of giving the overreaching Federal Govt more power than they wield already.

No, but, there is the argument that it would compel all states recognize the Federal CCW permit and the individual states (like MD, NY, NJ, CA) could not make it harder to get than the basic Federal requirement.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Z_Man]

it wouldn't be terribly difficult to open up the NICS so average joe's could punch in their info and bam go or no go. however, there is no way that this is all the UBC will turn into.

my preferred method to verify is that we need to change the crime/punishment system in the us.... one in which if society doesn't trust someone with a vote, or a gun, or a job around children, (the current post prison felon) then they shouldn't be out in society at all..... you are either reformed, or you aren't.

 

[Brooklyn]

I am interested to know how the request for a UBC can be made such that saving it as an piece of data is physically impossible?

I have discussed thus before.. by vetting a purchaser independent of any purchase.. no link between actual firearm ownership can be established sufficient for proof in court.


At best it would only provide PC that you might have a firearm..or had at one time.

By vetting the purchasers a safe harbor can be created to allow transfers between non FFL.

The key to set up a list of prohibited persons.. then use the complement set to vet a purchaser..
The key is that no information needs to be leaked and only a court order can put you on the prohibited person list.

Substantive due process, safe harbor for sellers , and no record of any purchase required.

If course this means scraping the existing system which happens to violate the 4th 2nd and 14 th amendments..

But unless you are willing to think outside the box... nothing will change...but it will get worse.

 

[Armati]

And thus my argument for our side to take over, own, and guide the UBC debate. Don't fight it, use it to our advantage. Judo.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[aireyc]

And thus my argument for our side to take over, own, and guide the UBC debate. Don't fight it, use it to our advantage. Judo.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

All of the minutiae of these arguments revolves around stupidity. It's a stupid solution to a non-existent problem. And our side is too dumb to understand that. It's fascinating to me how people are so easily manipulated. I thought gun owners in MD were bad until I went to Calguns. Goodness, their "Battered Gun Owner Syndrome" is so much worse than here. I guess when you're treated like a slave your whole life, you start to accept that as normal.

That's why I don't get the HQL. Once you get it, do you REALLY care that it exists? Sure, it may annoy you in theory, but how willing are you to fight when you've already suffered the worst of it? I don't think most people are.

 

[swinokur]

I'd rather see MD be forced to issue permits because non residents were allowed to carry here because of National Reciprocity over any Federal licensing scheme.

How long do you think it would take the GA to change the law when residents of PA, VA, DE and WV are carrying here but we're prohibited? I'm guessing not long.

just my .02

 

[Brooklyn]

All of the minutiae of these arguments revolves around stupidity. It's a stupid solution to a non-existent problem. And our side is too dumb to understand that. It's fascinating to me how people are so easily manipulated. I thought gun owners in MD were bad until I went to Calguns. Goodness, their "Battered Gun Owner Syndrome" is so much worse than here. I guess when you're treated like a slave your whole life, you start to accept that as normal.

That's why I don't get the HQL. Once you get it, do you REALLY care that it exists? Sure, it may annoy you in theory, but how willing are you to fight when you've already suffered the worst of it? I don't think most people are.

I am done defending the undefendable.

Time travel is not an option. Your concept of slavery is an insult to those who have truly suffered at the hands of tyrants.. and as long as you say such silky things we are lost.

We need to reach those that do not think as we do. And we must do it very quickly.. if the court does as some fear..we will need to reach the moderates..

And we had better be ready.

Propose the laws you want.. to lock out worse laws..or just Go rogue and do as you please...but don't be surprised when it blows up in your face.

I know ubc does not do anything.. but its a major political risk unless we go on the offensive..


Meanwhile ,as has been explained hundreds of times by now my myself and others.,. .not getting an HQL is just as much a loss as getting one.. exept there are more guns in civilian hands and more FFL stay in buiness.
We need more gun owners not fewer and calling them slaves is counter productive..

 

[Brooklyn]

I'd rather see MD be forced to issue permits because non residents were allowed to carry here because of National Reciprocity over any Federal licensing scheme.

How long do you think it would take the GA to change the law when residents of PA, VA, DE and WV are carrying here but we're prohibited? I'm guessing not long.

just my .02

They will seek and likely get an injunction from a paid for. Judge. Then we will litigate for a few years.. then they will assert the right to enact Byzantine local restictions on time place and manner most of which will serve only to entrap .

The only thing that will force MD to comply is a court holding or a federal safe harbor that creates a bar to local prosecuction.

Based on discussions I have had a grpc..most frendly States apose federalization and would never enter MD other than at gun point.

In fact they oppose reciprocity for the same reason..
So no one from out of state will every risk carrying in MD based on such a week law and if they do a few well publized which hunts will end it.

In fact its the fastest way I know to turn a ban on standard capacity magazine sales into a flat ban on posession.. ditto hollow points.

Without a federal safe harbor or a binding court ruling.. Md will not be forced to do anything..

 

[Armati]

.

I know ubc does not do anything.. but its a major political risk unless we go on the offensive..
..

Yes indeed!

We either seize the initiative on UBC and other forms of gun control, or sit passively and find ourselves out flanked on every front.


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Catmj]

Here in Maryland, I think it is absolutely absurd that we have to pay for a background check and fingerprints so that we can go through another background check to purchase a handgun! I already own handguns. I have been through numerous background checks for security clearance, entry to secure facilities and firearms purchases, etc. I consider the fee charged by the state to be nothing short of extortion to exercise a constitutional right. The mentality that we should endure this is a major step toward believing that the right to own firearms is just a privilege. A free man does not bow before the king.

Maryland's HQL requirement was nothing more than another roadblock put up to dissuade law-abiding citizens from purchasing firearms. They are targeting the casual non-gun enthusiast who one day sees all the news about riots, terrorists, etc., and wants to go buy a handgun for protection, only to walk in to a gun store and be told "Sorry, you need to get a special MD License to buy a handgun. Here's what you need to do to get that", and turns around and walks out, thinking "screw all that", and never follows up. For anyone who disagrees and thinks it's really about fighting crime (No one on here), then why is it good for 10 YEARS.

 

[GTOGUNNER]

Give the government and inch and some do good will take more. Felons can't legally get guns as well as many misdemeants (did I make that word up).
If you can vote, you should be able to own a gun. How else can you protect your vote. Bad guys drive around and round up old folks and make them vote
.. they can't defend themselves . Any background check is wrong.

 

[kcbrown]

Yes indeed!

We either seize the initiative on UBC and other forms of gun control, or sit passively and find ourselves out flanked on every front.


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Yes, let's "seize the initiative" to create more restrictions on ourselves. Good plan.

How's about actually fighting against new restrictions instead? If you're going to spend the effort to talk to people, why not spend it on convincing them that more liberty is BETTER, not WORSE? Fail in that, and we're doomed NO MATTER WHAT. Succeed, and you win the war.


(Sent with Tapatalk, so apologies for the lackluster formatting)

 

[Armati]

Yes, let's "seize the initiative" to create more restrictions on ourselves. Good plan. )

No. You already have restrictions. And in Heller the SCOTUS made it clear that the State can impose some "reasonable" restrictions. So it is up to us to change the debate and guide the restrictions toward something more palletable for us.

Right now, you cannot buy a gun through the mail unless you are an FFL or CMP member. I think we can change that with UBC.

Right now we don't have national CCW, and I think we could make that part of a UBC system.



Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Minuteman]

Yes, let's "seize the initiative" to create more restrictions on ourselves. Good plan.

How's about actually fighting against new restrictions instead? If you're going to spend the effort to talk to people, why not spend it on convincing them that more liberty is BETTER, not WORSE? Fail in that, and we're doomed NO MATTER WHAT. Succeed, and you win the war. )

Exactly. We do not need more laws that do not help, and actually do more to harm our Liberty than anything else.

Hopefully this thread has informed some and tipped others that were on the fence. This issue is one of the more complicated and difficult for us to understand and explain.

Thanks to all of you that enlightened us with reason, compassion, and respect for our freedoms.