Universal Background Checks for gun purchases

Armati said:

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.

Click to expand...

I said MORE restrictions.

How are you going to change the debate AWAY FROM restrictions by simply acquiescing to more of them, even if you manage to reduce the severity from what they otherwise might be?

Here's a hint: if the restriction CAN BE greater now, but you manage to reduce it from that now, it WILL BE greater later on. It then just becomes a matter of time. Restrictions monotonically increase over time until there is a FUNDAMENTAL change. You are not arguing for that. You are advocating for more of the same.

We have been down this road for DECADES now. Why should I believe that this approach you advocate, of what amounts to appeasing the enemies of liberty, will somehow magically produce different results this time?

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.

Click to expand...

So ... what, you want to EXPERIMENT? To see if increasing our restrictions now will cause them to magically be reduced later? When we have decades of experience proving that it never works out that way?

No. Experiment with your own liberties. I'm tired of what few I have left being toyed with, and eventually disappearing.



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

You guys do understand the basic principles of negotiation?

I think not.

You have to be willing to give up something that you are willing to part with to get something you really want. Play chess? Ever been with a woman? Are you married? Have a job? This is sort of the way the world works.

Hear is a fact, right now you have to go to an FFL to buy a gun. You have the HQL (which doesn't apply to me BTW). You do not have National CCW. You already have to prove you are not a criminal every time you try to buy a gun. I am not sure why this is even an argument.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

If the Dems had evidence that universal background checks prevented crimes or guns falling into the wrong hands why did they not push for back ground checks on all gun transfers ( not just regulated ) here in MD. Maryland, where machine guns are legal but you have to drive out of State to get a magazine. Where it is illegal to shoot someone if they are running away with your property but carrying cash will get you a carry permit when defense of life will not. That's not a conflict of theory?!?

You can still buy/sell shotguns, rifles etc in MD in private transactions with no paperwork, no background check. BUT! The MSP reviews hunting license data to find prohibited persons and assumes if they have a hunting license, they have a gun, then kick their door in with a Swat team. I'm pretty sure we have the screwiest, most unbalanced laws of any State.

If the Dems really though it was an issue, why did they not try to sneak it in with BS 281?

Knowing that the stats/percentages on criminals obtaining guns via private transfers is miniscule, I'm not a proponent of background checks for private sales. It's already illegal to sell a gun to a prohibited person, so is another law going to stop someone who was already willing to break the law? No.

It also creates a bottleneck. With the number of licensed FFL's dropping in MD due to BS 281, who would process all of these background checks? I don't know the availability in other States, but do FFL's really want to be burdened with a multitude of unprofitable transfers? Sounds like just another way to impede the gun communities lawful activity.

If they kept the God Damn criminals behind bars, there would be no reason to even suggest all of these Freedom crushing gun laws that affect ONLY the non criminal.

Armati said:

You guys do understand the basic principles of negotiation?

Click to expand...

You mean like how the NFA was "negotiated"? Or the various "assault weapons" bans? Or the myriad restrictions we currently live under?

Exactly how is what you're proposing ANY DIFFERENT from any of that?

The answer, of course, is that it's not.

We got WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW by "negotiating". Enough is enough. It's time to change the fundamental nature of the game. We will LOSE by doing anything less.




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

You guys are missing the point, you take the issue away from them and craft the new laws to be more favorable to lawful gun owners.

Ever wonder why no one went to jail from the financial crisis? Because Wall Street wrote the laws that they would be governed under. Congress looked like they were "doing something" and given that some law was going to be written, Wall Street made sure they were doing the writing.

Gun owners need to adopt the same strategy. Our industry will be governed - count on it. The only question is who do you want writing the law?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

UBCs are just the first step in the gun controllers strategy...

I think the Brady Act should be repealed entirely. With a republican POTUS, I would like to see the NRA start playing a national strategy that's based on offense rather than defense. Chip away at NFA, GCA, Hughes, and Brady.

With each year bringing a few more constitutional carry states, I think we are well on our way. Having said all that, I think people should get their HQL, it helps out the movement to show "new gun owners". By sitting out on the HQL, you are giving the controllers what they want.

kcbrown said:

We got WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW by "negotiating". Enough is enough. It's time to change the fundamental nature of the game. We will LOSE by doing anything less.

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

Click to expand...

^^^ The truest words I have ever read on this forum.

Armati said:

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

Click to expand...

Why should I have to request and receive permission from the government to exercise my rights?

Brooklyn said:

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..

Click to expand...

You need to read or listen to some Sowell to understand what slavery is.

Armati said:

You guys are missing the point, you take the issue away from them and craft the new laws to be more favorable to lawful gun owners.

Click to expand...

Let me explain to you exactly how this will go down if we do it your way.

The first thing is that, of course, no firearm transfer will be legal unless the recipient passes the "background check". People in free states will suddenly come under the same rules for face to face transactions that those of us in restrictive states already live under. This system will be allowed to run as-is for a while until people get used to the idea of a "background check" being a legal requirement for a transfer.

Then, later, additional "sources" will be added to the "background check" mechanism. Say, for instance, ObamaCare records of who made visits to mental health professionals. And then records of people who do "sufficiently suspicious things". Eventually, people on the "terrorist watch list" will be put into the system. Sooner or later, it'll be something that cannot be contested due to "national security" concerns. And each one of those will be something that we will "negotiate" on but, just as with UBC, we will be negotiating from a position of weakness, so we will only be able to reduce the damage from the maximum possible, and only temporarily at that.

Perhaps, as an intermediate step, before the additional restriction-by-source stuff is implemented, the system will end up being converted into one involving "permits". Which is to say, you end up having to get a "permit" from the government in order to be able to be a firearm recipient at all. After that has gone on long enough, people will be used to the idea of having to ask the government for permission to receive a firearm. Then, later, the same will be applied to ammunition. Eventually, the people will get used to the idea of having to ask the government for permission to do anything related to firearms. And when people are used to having to ask for permission, the notion that they might be refused permission suddenly becomes a lot less objectionable. After all, why else would you have to ask permission, if you couldn't be rejected?

This won't happen overnight. It'll take many, many years. Decades even. But it'll eventually happen. Why? Because you made it possible in the first place! And the people will have no legal alternative, because you took that away from them with this.


And there are additional negative side effects to it as well. For instance, the government will now know everyone who has shown an interest in purchasing a firearm. Brooklyn claims that this will only give the government "probable cause" at most, but with the way the 4th Amendment is being treated today, that's enough to get your door kicked in and your dog shot. There is real value in being able to legally be off the radar (none of us are, of course, but why should we limit what others can do merely because we are so limited ourselves?), and you guys aren't recognizing that fact at all. You support the surveillance state at the peril of us all.

Gun owners need to adopt the same strategy. Our industry will be governed - count on it. The only question is who do you want writing the law?

Click to expand...

If you want to write laws, fine. Write ones that liberate. But that's not what you're proposing. You're proposing letting the opposition write the bulk of the legislation, with our side only providing "guidance". How do I know? Because you're proposing support of a restriction, one that was proposed by the opposition. That is completely different from reducing the degree of liberation, which is what we'd actually be talking about if we were dictating the legislation. The Civil Rights Act is an example of the kind of legislation I'm talking about, but that's not what we're discussing at all. We're discussing an additional restriction.

The banks got what they want because they "negotiate" from a position of strength. They dictate the legislation and make minor concessions in order to guarantee passage of their legislation. Which is to say, they use the concessions to transform the probable into the guaranteed. That's not the position we're in. If we were in that position, the antis would be approaching us for concessions on bills that would liberate us, rather than us approaching them for concessions on bills that would restrict us.

No, when you're in a position of weakness, like we appear to be at the national level, the only way to win is to change the game, not to play the game the opposition wants us to play. You're proposing the latter. It will work just as well as it has for the past several decades: not at all.


Either we are in a position of strength, in which case your approach isn't necessary at all, or we're in a position of weakness, in which case we need to change the game. Either way, your approach gets us nowhere.

TheBert said:

Do you believe that the federal government deletes anything these days?

Click to expand...

No. FISMA prohibits it.

Brooklyn said:

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.

Click to expand...

Your scheme would be tied up in court for several lifetimes, IMO.

And as far as no leaks, tell that to the Chinese, Russians, IRGC, Hamas, ISIS/L, CCC, Russian Mafia and all God's other chilluns. The only hackproof system resides inside a sealed steel cube and has no outside connections and no users. Anything else is vulnerable.

kcbrown said:

Let me explain to you exactly how this will go down if we do it your way.

The first thing is that, of course, no firearm transfer will be legal unless the recipient passes the "background check". People in free states will suddenly come under the same rules for face to face transactions that those of us in restrictive states already live under. This system will be allowed to run as-is for a while until people get used to the idea of a "background check" being a legal requirement for a transfer.

Then, later, additional "sources" will be added to the "background check" mechanism. Say, for instance, ObamaCare records of who made visits to mental health professionals. And then records of people who do "suspicious things". Eventually, people on the "terrorist watch list" will be put into the system. Sooner or later, it'll be something that cannot be contested due to "national security" concerns. And each one of those will be something that we will "negotiate" on but, just as with UBC, we will be negotiating from a position of weakness, so we will only be able to reduce the damage from the maximum possible, and only temporarily at that.

Perhaps, as an intermediate step, before the additional restriction-by-source stuff is implemented, the system will end up being converted into one involving "permits". Which is to say, you end up having to get a "permit" from the government in order to be able to be a firearm recipient at all. After that has gone on long enough, people will be used to the idea of having to ask the government for permission to receive a firearm. Then, later, the same will be applied to ammunition. Eventually, the people will get used to the idea of having to ask the government for permission to do anything related to firearms. And when people are used to having to ask for permission, the notion that they might be refused permission suddenly becomes a lot less objectionable. After all, why else would you have to ask permission, if you couldn't be rejected?

This won't happen overnight. It'll take many, many years. Decades even. But it'll eventually happen. Why? Because you made it possible in the first place! And the people will have no legal recourse, because you took that away from them with this.


If you want to write laws, fine. Write ones that liberate. But that's not what you're proposing. You're proposing letting the opposition write the bulk of the legislation, with our side only providing "guidance". How do I know? Because you're proposing support of a restriction. That is completely different from reducing the degree of liberation, which is what we'd actually be talking about if we were dictating the legislation. The Civil Rights Act is an example of the kind of legislation I'm talking about, but that's not what we're discussing at all. We're discussing an additional restriction.

The banks got what they want because they "negotiate" from a position of strength. They dictate the legislation and make minor concessions in order to guarantee passage of their legislation. Which is to say, they use the concessions to transform the probable into the guaranteed. That's not the position we're in. If we were in that position, the antis would be approaching us for concessions on bills that would liberate us, rather than us approaching them for concessions on bills that would restrict us.

No, when you're in a position of weakness, like we appear to be at the national level, the only way to win is to change the game, not to play the game the opposition wants us to play. You're proposing the latter. It will work just as well as it has for the past several decades: not at all.


Either we are in a position of strength, in which case your approach isn't necessary at all, or we're in a position of weakness, in which case we need to change the game. Either way, your approach gets us nowhere.

Click to expand...

You make some good points, but I'd like to expand a bit.

The Banksters were able to "negotiate" the laws they were governed with because they were in a position of strength. They didn't get there overnight.

They methodically bought every member of Congress, beginning when they were running for the local PTA.

They wrote everything they could think of, however zany and impractical/illegal, into the proposed laws. Then they conceded the impractical/illegal items during negotiations to wind up with exactly what they wanted in the first place.

The punishment for any meaningful, substantive rebellion or dissent by Congress during the negotiations was the threat of a banking collapse a la the Crash of 1929 and the subsequent Great Depression. They had the Fed, the EX-IM Bank and the World Bank behind them to back up that threat, and Congress knew that those entities could make that happen again.

Even better, the strength of the Banksters' position is magnified by the media. Go against their wishes and you can wipe your butt with your stock for all it will be worth. And those short term loans to support your operating cash flow will suddenly dry up. Nice little media network you had there. What a shame...

We are nowhere near their position. We have little to bargain with nationally, and no threat to back up our negotiations. And the MSM belittles and vilifies our champions. That is our reality.

Have you ever watched the TV show GUNSMOKE? Even the bad guys, that were criminals have guns. They screw up, the get dead. Where's the problem.
Our legal system let's criminals off the hook rather than convict an innocent person. Or kinda innocent. Stuffs gonna happen. Deal with it and stfu.

BeoBill said:

The punishment for any meaningful, substantive rebellion or dissent by Congress during the negotiations was the threat of a banking collapse a la the Crash of 1929 and the subsequent Great Depression. They had the Fed, the EX-IM Bank and the World Bank behind them to back up that threat, and Congress knew that those entities could make that happen again.

Even better, the strength of the Banksters' position is magnified by the media. Go against their wishes and you can wipe your butt with your stock for all it will be worth. And those short term loans to support your operating cash flow will suddenly dry up. Nice little media network you had there. What a shame...

We are nowhere near their position. We have little to bargain with nationally, and no threat to back up our negotiations. And the MSM belittles and vilifies our champions. That is our reality.

Click to expand...

Precisely.

So: either we spend our persuasive energy on convincing people that they want and need more liberty, or we spend it on convincing them that they want and need less additional restrictions. The former puts you on a path towards greater liberty. The latter keeps you on the path towards servitude.

I swear, there must be some people here who are hell-bent on getting us to the point where we're so restricted that the only option left will be revolution, even if we could have avoided it by peaceful means. If that's their goal, then they don't understand that, even if revolution were the only way to win, one is least likely to win it when one is most restricted. Regardless, further restrictions are something I simply cannot support. Enough is enough. We do not have to destroy the village in order to save it!

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

Every "negotiation" thus far has resulted in an infringement on my rights. And the infringers have given up what exactly? My position on future negotiations is simple. Not One More Inch. Like they say, I have guns. You don't want me to have them, and want to take them away. NO. Your move.

There's always a background check except for face to face in state sales, and didn't Dems object to private citizens being allowed to run BG checks?

jessebogan said:

Every "negotiation" thus far has resulted in an infringement on my rights. And the infringers have given up what exactly? My position on future negotiations is simple. Not One More Inch. Like they say, I have guns. You don't want me to have them, and want to take them away. NO. Your move.

Click to expand...

Yep. I agree. "I will not comply"! UBC is just another infringement. NICS works well now as far a can see it. Really FBI and DHS need to have a better handle on illegal gun sales and criminal element to include illegal coming here.
"

kcbrown said:

Precisely.

So: either we spend our persuasive energy on convincing people that they want and need more liberty, or we spend it on convincing them that they want and need less additional restrictions. The former puts you on a path towards greater liberty. The latter keeps you on the path towards servitude.

I swear, there must be some people here who are hell-bent on getting us to the point where we're so restricted that the only option left will be revolution, even if we could have avoided it by peaceful means. If that's their goal, then they don't understand that, even if revolution were the only way to win, one is least likely to win it when one is most restricted. Regardless, further restrictions are something I simply cannot support. Enough is enough. We do not have to destroy the village in order to save it!

Click to expand...

I agree with your comments. Where are the TV adds to promote this attitude.
No winners when bullets are flying, if there is revolution there will no friendly fire!