Universal background checks

[M14 Shooter]

Been thinking about these, above and beyond their unconstitutionality as a form of prior restraint.

Because there's no way for the state to show when a gun changed hands, the only way they can be effective is if we have universal gun registration.

Once I reached that conclusion, I realized that’s the plan.
In fact, it's been the plan since before background checks became federal law in 1993.

Give an inch, they take a mile. Don't give an inch.

 

[oldfart]

Because there's no way for the state to show when a gun changed hands, the only way they can be effective is if we have universal gun registration.

You're confusing two concepts. The fact that you need to be able to provide proof of age to buy alcohol does not mean that a government agency is tracking all of your alcohol purchases.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because there's no way for the state to show when a gun changed hands, the only way they can be effective is if we have universal gun registration.

You're confusing two concepts. The fact that you need to be able to provide proof of age to buy alcohol does not mean that a government agency is tracking all of your alcohol purchases.

You do not understand.

If the state cannot prove when a firearm was tranferred between private parties, it cannot prove that the law requiring a UBC for a private transfer was broken.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because there's no way for the state to show when a gun changed hands, the only way they can be effective is if we have universal gun registration.

You're confusing two concepts. The fact that you need to be able to provide proof of age to buy alcohol does not mean that a government agency is tracking all of your alcohol purchases.

The fact that the government does not require me to prove I am not a drunk if I have a beer with a friend is proof that you are the one who is confused. Universal background checks would apply even if I gave a gun to a friend. That is, by definition, prior restraint.

 

[Underhill]

Been thinking about these, above and beyond their unconstitutionality as a form of prior restraint.

Because there's no way for the state to show when a gun changed hands, the only way they can be effective is if we have universal gun registration.

Once I reached that conclusion, I realized that’s the plan.
In fact, it's been the plan since before background checks became federal law in 1993.

Give an inch, they take a mile. Don't give an inch.

How is registration a form of prior restraint? They aren't restraining anything.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Been thinking about these, above and beyond their unconstitutionality as a form of prior restraint.

Because there's no way for the state to show when a gun changed hands, the only way they can be effective is if we have universal gun registration.

Once I reached that conclusion, I realized that’s the plan.
In fact, it's been the plan since before background checks became federal law in 1993.

Give an inch, they take a mile. Don't give an inch.

How is registration a form of prior restraint? They aren't restraining anything.

Allow me to eliminate your confusion:

Been thinking about [universal background checks], above and beyond their unconstitutionality as a form of prior restraint.

 

[Underhill]

Because there's no way for the state to show when a gun changed hands, the only way they can be effective is if we have universal gun registration.

You're confusing two concepts. The fact that you need to be able to provide proof of age to buy alcohol does not mean that a government agency is tracking all of your alcohol purchases.

The fact that the government does not require me to prove I am not a drunk if I have a beer with a friend is proof that you are the one who is confused. Universal background checks would apply even if I gave a gun to a friend. That is, by definition, prior restraint.

So what you guys are saying is that there is literally nothing you would allow the government to do to curb the problem.

Well that is one way to go. I think it is the wrong way.

When you continually say no to everything, even the most mundane concessions, sooner or later they simply stop listening to you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're confusing two concepts. The fact that you need to be able to provide proof of age to buy alcohol does not mean that a government agency is tracking all of your alcohol purchases.

The fact that the government does not require me to prove I am not a drunk if I have a beer with a friend is proof that you are the one who is confused. Universal background checks would apply even if I gave a gun to a friend. That is, by definition, prior restraint.

So what you guys are saying is that there is literally nothing you would allow the government to do to curb the problem.

Well that is one way to go. I think it is the wrong way.

When you continually say no to everything, even the most mundane concessions, sooner or later they simply stop listening to you.

Give an inch, they take a mile. Don't give an inch.

 

[Underhill]

Been thinking about these, above and beyond their unconstitutionality as a form of prior restraint.

Because there's no way for the state to show when a gun changed hands, the only way they can be effective is if we have universal gun registration.

Once I reached that conclusion, I realized that’s the plan.
In fact, it's been the plan since before background checks became federal law in 1993.

Give an inch, they take a mile. Don't give an inch.

How is registration a form of prior restraint? They aren't restraining anything.

Allow me to eliminate your confusion:

Been thinking about [universal background checks], above and beyond their unconstitutionality as a form of prior restraint.

But even then, it isn't a form of restraint for legal gun owners. You are allowed to get the gun if you are legal.

Without a background check anyone can buy a gun anywhere, making it that much easier for criminals. Do you honestly think that is okay?

 

[Underhill]

The fact that the government does not require me to prove I am not a drunk if I have a beer with a friend is proof that you are the one who is confused. Universal background checks would apply even if I gave a gun to a friend. That is, by definition, prior restraint.

So what you guys are saying is that there is literally nothing you would allow the government to do to curb the problem.

Well that is one way to go. I think it is the wrong way.

When you continually say no to everything, even the most mundane concessions, sooner or later they simply stop listening to you.

Give an inch, they take a mile. Don't give an inch.

Yep, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

So what is an example of you giving an inch and them actually taking a mile?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're confusing two concepts. The fact that you need to be able to provide proof of age to buy alcohol does not mean that a government agency is tracking all of your alcohol purchases.

The fact that the government does not require me to prove I am not a drunk if I have a beer with a friend is proof that you are the one who is confused. Universal background checks would apply even if I gave a gun to a friend. That is, by definition, prior restraint.

So what you guys are saying is that there is literally nothing you would allow the government to do to curb the problem.

Well that is one way to go. I think it is the wrong way.

When you continually say no to everything, even the most mundane concessions, sooner or later they simply stop listening to you.

What, exactly, is the problem? Positing solutions before you define the parameters only makes sense if you think intentions trump results.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So what you guys are saying is that there is literally nothing you would allow the government to do to curb the problem.
Well that is one way to go. I think it is the wrong way.
When you continually say no to everything, even the most mundane concessions, sooner or later they simply stop listening to you.

Give an inch, they take a mile. Don't give an inch.

Yep, that's exactly what I'm talking about.
So what is an example of you giving an inch and them actually taking a mile?

You read the OP, right?
How about expounding on or reacting to the argument laid out there?

 

[M14 Shooter]

How is registration a form of prior restraint? They aren't restraining anything.

Allow me to eliminate your confusion:

Been thinking about [universal background checks], above and beyond their unconstitutionality as a form of prior restraint.

But even then, it isn't a form of restraint for legal gun owners. You are allowed to get the gun if you are legal.

You dont understand.

Prior restraint is when the government prevents you from exercising a right until such a time that it determines that said exercise does not violate the law - you are restrained BEFORE you commit an illegal act on the grounds that you MIGHT be comitting an illegal act. This violates the constitution.

The fact that you get to eventually get to exercise your right is inherently irrelevant.

 

[PaulS1950]

If a "universal" background check is put in place it will be totally unenforcable. It is meaningless and as worthless as any legislation ever conceived. What are they going to do about all the guns that have been sold to people by other people and not dealers? You can't track what you don't know about and it is against the law to register guns so the government can track them.
It is already illegal to hold the seller responsible for the crimes committed by the one who purchases something from a private citizen - whether it is a car or a knife or a baseball bat or a gun. So what are the consequences of selling to someone without performing a background check if you are not a licensed dealer? Nothing!
Nothing you do with a law is going to affect a criminal getting a gun. It only restricts the lawful purchase of the guns. Criminals don't make lawful purchases. There is no reason for background checks at all - they don't stop criminals from getting guns.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If a "universal" background check is put in place it will be totally unenforcable. It is meaningless and as worthless as any legislation ever conceived. What are they going to do about all the guns that have been sold to people by other people and not dealers? You can't track what you don't know about and it is against the law to register guns so the government can track them.

Yup. That's exactly my point.
The true goal in all this is universal registration.
Don't give an inch.

 

[Sarah G]

You're confusing two concepts. The fact that you need to be able to provide proof of age to buy alcohol does not mean that a government agency is tracking all of your alcohol purchases.

The fact that the government does not require me to prove I am not a drunk if I have a beer with a friend is proof that you are the one who is confused. Universal background checks would apply even if I gave a gun to a friend. That is, by definition, prior restraint.

So what you guys are saying is that there is literally nothing you would allow the government to do to curb the problem.

Well that is one way to go. I think it is the wrong way.

When you continually say no to everything, even the most mundane concessions, sooner or later they simply stop listening to you.

They don't know what is going to happen but from what I've read here, the speculation and predictions, some of the gun enthusiasts will be in for a rude awakening.

 

[PaulS1950]

I do know that as long as they can progressives and the politicians that they support will keep pushing until we have no rights.
They used the WTC to put unlawful searches of American citizens in place at airports. If someone walked into a mall and sett off a suicide bomb would they then put the same searches on the street? Would they have federal ID cards issued to show your political affiliations and ethnicity? How close to all out socialism do we have to get before people wake up and see that our country is floundering? At what point will Americans again take up arms against agressive oppression? Will we wait like the people in other countries until we are disarmed and helpless to act?

I hope not but from what I have seen in the last few years I am concerned that is what will happen.

 

[Underhill]

I do know that as long as they can progressives and the politicians that they support will keep pushing until we have no rights.
They used the WTC to put unlawful searches of American citizens in place at airports. If someone walked into a mall and sett off a suicide bomb would they then put the same searches on the street? Would they have federal ID cards issued to show your political affiliations and ethnicity? How close to all out socialism do we have to get before people wake up and see that our country is floundering? At what point will Americans again take up arms against agressive oppression? Will we wait like the people in other countries until we are disarmed and helpless to act?

I hope not but from what I have seen in the last few years I am concerned that is what will happen.

That was Bush and his people.

And this has nothing to do with socialism.

And while you may be right, I doubt it. These things cannot happen unless the people allow it. That is why I am not worried about your slippery slope argument. It's ultimately up to the people. And if they do go to far, the politicians will be replaced.

It's really that simple.

 

[Underhill]

The fact that the government does not require me to prove I am not a drunk if I have a beer with a friend is proof that you are the one who is confused. Universal background checks would apply even if I gave a gun to a friend. That is, by definition, prior restraint.

So what you guys are saying is that there is literally nothing you would allow the government to do to curb the problem.

Well that is one way to go. I think it is the wrong way.

When you continually say no to everything, even the most mundane concessions, sooner or later they simply stop listening to you.

What, exactly, is the problem? Positing solutions before you define the parameters only makes sense if you think intentions trump results.

I don't think it matters. This is my point.

There is a problem with criminals walking into gun shops and buying guns. But laws have been put in place that restrict what the authorities to the point where they can do nothing about it. And the NRA was the one writing the legislation under the guise of protecting our rights. In reality they were protecting the gun manufacturers so they could sell guns to literally anyone with no consequences.

Now I doubt their intent was to put guns in the hands of criminals. But even when we see the results, they refuse any change. And that is the point.

Regardless of what the legislation is, the gun lobby will fight it. And that is a recipe for failure.

If you want to see the smart play, look at the National Sheriffs Association. They have gotten behind some of the more reasonable gun regulations and will probably be at the table when they are written. While the NRA sits outside yelping about no new regulations...

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is a problem with criminals walking into gun shops and buying guns. But laws have been put in place that restrict what the authorities to the point where they can do nothing about it.

Specifically, what laws?

And the NRA was the one writing the legislation under the guise of protecting our rights. In reality they were protecting the gun manufacturers so they could sell guns to literally anyone with no consequences.

Ths is hogwash.
Gun manufacturers sell to wholesalers and dealers, not individuals.

Now I doubt their intent was to put guns in the hands of criminals. But even when we see the results, they refuse any change. Regardless of what the legislation is, the gun lobby will fight it.

More hogwash; the reason we have the NICS at all is because the NRA supported it.