danb
dont be a dumbass
Thinking on this while commuting home today, I believe this is where we lose ground on the argument. We say "it's already against the law to knowingly sell to a prohibited person," and antis hear "so the guy lies to you and gets a gun." Then moderates think "it's easy to lie to somebody, so background checks are a good idea to keep bad guys from lying," and then don't understand when we don't agree to more background checks. Then antis are then able to accuse us of being out of touch, heartless, or downright abusing the system. We need a way to rebut the point of felons possibly lying without sounding like we're denying that there's even a problem (yes, I know bad guys don't get their guns from gun shows, but to a suburban soccer mom that just sounds like her kids going "did not!" in an argument).
Why do we need to rebut the point that felons possibly lie? I mean, The same guy who can find you illegal prescription drugs can dig up a stolen gun to take care of the competition.
I am fine with background checks if that is the only requirement. Interstate transfers already require an FFL. If the feds want to require ID or a background check for an intrastate transfer, this becomes a states rights issue. Then let the fed force states to approve the sale conditional only ONLY a background check. That is, conditional on a background check, the states must approve the gun sale/transfer without other conditions. Period. Let the feds mandate that private citizens have access to a NICS (or similar state system) at a maximum charge of a few dollars per check. Records would be destroyed in three days with penalties for attempts to use the info for a registry.
Now, if Schumer is ok with this (which btw overrules draconian gun laws in MD, NY, and elsewhere), if they want to commit to this, then they can have their universal checks.