Universal background checks... really?

[bigrebnc1775]

How in the hell is the government going enforce background checks on private sells?
What if you want to barrow a friends firearm? ACCORDING TO MY SOURCES, YOU NEED A BACKGROUND CHECK FOR THAT.

Your argument reminds me of this time when they lowered the speed limit on a road back when I lived in Houston. The cars on the road miraculously went slower because it was the law? Did some people still speed? Yes. Did most? No.

If you pass a law stating that you have to go over to the courthouse or county tax assessor’s office or justice of the peace’s office or the local firearms dealer who is certified to perform the transaction….people will do it. Will some still sell their weapon no questions asked to any one with enough money regardless of their criminal intent…sure.

It is strange that every gun nut on this message board tells us how law abiding gun owners are….yet if you suggest there may be enhanced background checks coming up….the law abiding gun owners will turn into a lawless mob. Which confirms the worst suspicions some have about gun nuts.

Take my word on it I will be a f****** criminal I will create guns and sell them to anybody that wants them

Ghost gun boxes and 80 percent receivers are being bought up for you to finish off even as anticipate what the Dems will do.

0% blanks

 

[candycorn]

How in the hell is the government going enforce background checks on private sells?
What if you want to barrow a friends firearm? ACCORDING TO MY SOURCES, YOU NEED A BACKGROUND CHECK FOR THAT.

Your argument reminds me of this time when they lowered the speed limit on a road back when I lived in Houston. The cars on the road miraculously went slower because it was the law? Did some people still speed? Yes. Did most? No.

If you pass a law stating that you have to go over to the courthouse or county tax assessor’s office or justice of the peace’s office or the local firearms dealer who is certified to perform the transaction….people will do it. Will some still sell their weapon no questions asked to any one with enough money regardless of their criminal intent…sure.

It is strange that every gun nut on this message board tells us how law abiding gun owners are….yet if you suggest there may be enhanced background checks coming up….the law abiding gun owners will turn into a lawless mob. Which confirms the worst suspicions some have about gun nuts.

Take my word on it I will be a f****** criminal I will create guns and sell them to anybody that wants them

I have no doubt. So much for you ever being a law enforcement officer....it was clearly a lie from the get go

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Show me where in the Constitution where it's Unconstitutional. I read it and didn't see one mention of it. Does your copy have it written in Sharpie?

Did you try reading the Fourth Amendment? I'm sure the word "papers" would be inclusive of computer records. Oh, that's right, your copy don't contain that Amendment. Let me get it for you:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

It is unreasonable to search someone just because they exercise a constitutional Right. How about a background check to buy that case of beer, buy a certain book, access certain content from your ISP, join a church??? Would the search be reasonable then?

Jim Jones caused over 900 people to commit suicide so that religion you're interested in might encourage you to do likewise - or like some religions, encourage you to kill or convert people.

Books and Internet content have taught a lot of killers the tricks of the trade. Booze has caused more deaths than firearms (you know like DUI, over-indulgence leading to health problems, etc.)

Sorry about your incomplete Constitution... wait a minute. You were right along. I apologize. The illegally ratified 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights that contained that pesky 4th Amendment. So we have no Rights at all. Maybe it will be books or booze; video games or churches that will require a background check for you to partake in.

And yet, not one thing about Background Checks to purchase firearms. Imagine that. The State has the right to require it as long as they used Reasonable Due Process to require it. You can't just pick and choose what parts of the Constitution you will follow. You either follow all of it or none of it. Unless you can get the 14th amendment rescended then it stands as law. And it stands as constitutional.

Background Checks, when done with Due Process, are completely legal even for Federals but the Federals have not done it yet outside of FFL licensed dealers and that has been upheld in the courts. The States have done it on ALL sales and that also has stood up in the courts. It has nothing to do with anything you keep bringing up. You do a lot of "Hey, Look over there" crap.

I have read a LOT of posts on this board. Some notable trolls that don't make ANY sense would include danielpalos and IM2. That post you just put up was the most idiotic, dumb, stupid, asinine, uneducated, ridiculous, bullshit that has EVER been put on the Internet. It shows that you couldn't pass a 6th grade civics course. You better get the Hell off this thread before I embarrass you and make you a laughingstock.

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

Daryl Hunt, with the 14th Amendment in place there is NO SUCH THING AS DUE PROCESS. Are you that stupid? Even Donald Trump has wanted to go after the guns, THEN give Due Process later. What an idiot you are! The reason unconstitutional laws are being upheld in the courts is that you have no Rights due to the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment cancelled out Due Process. It's why there is no more innocent until proven guilty. It's why they can pass ex post facto laws. Yeah, I'm reclaiming my Rights back by exposing what the 14th Amendment is all about. So pick a side and stand on it. If you want Due Process, unalienable Rights, and Freedom, then you have to reject the 14th Amendment.

You can't have it both ways.

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” Patrick Henry

“...rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our own will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual"
— Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany - 1819)

"Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” Patrick Henry

"The true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1808

Daryl Hunt, you cannot over-ride unalienable Rights (like the Bill of Rights) with an illegally ratified amendment to the Constitution.

First of all, I have yet to see any court say that ANYTHING was unbillofrightable. How about sticking to the legal document where something might be ruled unconstitutional or not. You people throw the Bill of Rights like it has a legal standing. It was a feel good document to sway a couple of representatives to ratify the Constitution. In fact, it was word for word the first 10 amendments of the Constitution of the United States and it was written 2 full years AFTER the Constitution was written and ratified by enough States to make it legal. And, even so, the Bill of Rights doesn't say what you claim it does.

The 14th was written to keep the Feds and the States from riding roughshod over the citizens whenever it felt like it. It weakened the Government and made the Government have to follow Due Process. That means, it backs up the 1st amendment and actually expands on it.

Again, you either follow ALL of the Constitution of you follow none of it. You keep trying to rewrite it for your own agenda. Sorry, the Courts don't agree and until you get the 14th and the 1st rescended, don't look for them to rule any other way.

You have such a low understanding of the Constitution that it is obvious what you're saying is absolute bullshit - stuff you made up off the top of your head.

Since you do NOT understand the Constitution nor have you read it, the earliest courts, including the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Right to keep and bear Arms predated the Constitution. Since you didn't read my previous post, I'm dumbing down it down for you.

The 14th Amendment rescinded (not rescended - dumbass) the Bill of Rights so there is NO First Amendment. You sound like a happy little communist, so you can kiss my ass. When the government fails to follow the law and wants to infringe on my Rights I have a duty, an obligation, and a Right to refuse to comply with unconstitutional laws.

Then you have the duty and the right to go to prison. Please form the line to the right along with all your other criminals.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How in the hell is the government going enforce background checks on private sells?
What if you want to barrow a friends firearm? ACCORDING TO MY SOURCES, YOU NEED A BACKGROUND CHECK FOR THAT.

Your argument reminds me of this time when they lowered the speed limit on a road back when I lived in Houston. The cars on the road miraculously went slower because it was the law? Did some people still speed? Yes. Did most? No.

If you pass a law stating that you have to go over to the courthouse or county tax assessor’s office or justice of the peace’s office or the local firearms dealer who is certified to perform the transaction….people will do it. Will some still sell their weapon no questions asked to any one with enough money regardless of their criminal intent…sure.

It is strange that every gun nut on this message board tells us how law abiding gun owners are….yet if you suggest there may be enhanced background checks coming up….the law abiding gun owners will turn into a lawless mob. Which confirms the worst suspicions some have about gun nuts.

Take my word on it I will be a f****** criminal I will create guns and sell them to anybody that wants them

I have no doubt. So much for you ever being a law enforcement officer....it was clearly a lie from the get go

LOL So much for your opinion liar. Cops can be the biggest crocks out their. As a matter of fact I busted one for taking crack from kids and not charging them and resale it. When your government makes honest people criminals nothing really matters after that.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

And mandating UBCs on all sales is no big deal. Sell a gun without one and you have broken the law and will be liable just as you would for breaking any other law.

Except, of course the state cannot prove you did so.

Exactly one hundred percent correct

OK dumb this down for me. If I sell a gun to X and the cops take it from him, even if it isn't used in a crime, how does the government NOT trace the gun's lineage? A Universal Background Check cannot be enforced unless there is a built in National Gun Registration.

We need to be clear what we're selling to our fellow gun owners. From this point, forward I'm not registering any firearms, am not signing any papers to buy one, and I'm damn sure not going to forfeit my Fourth Amendment Rights to exercise a constitutional right. This B.S. has gone far enough.

We could and should stop mass shootings. We can do it without a tax increase, a new bureaucracy or gun control. I don't know why we didn't stop this crap by putting the bill on the table. It would shut the dems down. Every time they say gun control, we put that bill on the table and they are on the defensive. We didn't and now we're looking at Universal Background Checks and Red Flag Laws.

Educate yourself

Here's how cops actually trace a gun

But we SHOULD have a national registry...the only reason we don't is....the NRA

Educate yourself means I have to agree with you. The problem is, if I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.

I worked for a company that sold firearms to police departments and the military. The man even had a storefront and we did retail sales.

I also went to law school, so I know a little about this subject. So, let me school you. Most of your little story is relevant up to about the time of the Brady Bill. Today the sell out NRA should be embarrassed as you should be for LYING to the American people. The facts are that with the Brady Bill, the government collects data on you before you purchase a weapon. The NRA was crowing about the fact that after a statutory period (I don't recall 30 , 60 , 90 days later), BATFE was to destroy their records. Man, we all felt safe. We could be checked out, then no permanent records (what you call a registry.)

Then along came another law. It created the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security. With Homeland (IN) Security came the requirements of records sharing. So, when we want to check out an immigrant, BICE accesses the records; when people want certain jobs, other agencies get the records - even the IRS can get the records. The point being, once the records were generated, they NEVER went away. BATFE may destroy their records, but whoever they shared them with is under NO statutory obligation to destroy them. The ability to find 85 percent of all the weapons in America already exists.

A Universal Background Check would only work if you had National Gun Registration. That is EXACTLY how this will work. So, if store buys an AR 15 from Ruger, the factory records what store bought it. The store fills out a Form 4473 and where I live you can either pay for a background check OR use your Georgia Weapons License to avoid that charge / inconvenience. The store never gets rid of the Form 4473 and when they go out of business, they surrender their records to the BATFE. So, in Georgia, if you sell your weapon you ask the buyer to see their Georgia Weapon's License. You know you've sold to a responsible buyer - and I've never had a problem (I haven't sold a lot of guns, but maybe as many as dozen or so over the course of my life.)

What the Universal Background Check is all about is creating that database you want. That way, when the Democrats come to power, they have a registration list and it's National Gun Registration so Beto's boyfriends can take your firearms. A rose by any other name...

The greatest reason to retain the Right to keep and bear Arms is, as a last resort, to prevent tyranny in government.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Did you try reading the Fourth Amendment? I'm sure the word "papers" would be inclusive of computer records. Oh, that's right, your copy don't contain that Amendment. Let me get it for you:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

It is unreasonable to search someone just because they exercise a constitutional Right. How about a background check to buy that case of beer, buy a certain book, access certain content from your ISP, join a church??? Would the search be reasonable then?

Jim Jones caused over 900 people to commit suicide so that religion you're interested in might encourage you to do likewise - or like some religions, encourage you to kill or convert people.

Books and Internet content have taught a lot of killers the tricks of the trade. Booze has caused more deaths than firearms (you know like DUI, over-indulgence leading to health problems, etc.)

Sorry about your incomplete Constitution... wait a minute. You were right along. I apologize. The illegally ratified 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights that contained that pesky 4th Amendment. So we have no Rights at all. Maybe it will be books or booze; video games or churches that will require a background check for you to partake in.

And yet, not one thing about Background Checks to purchase firearms. Imagine that. The State has the right to require it as long as they used Reasonable Due Process to require it. You can't just pick and choose what parts of the Constitution you will follow. You either follow all of it or none of it. Unless you can get the 14th amendment rescended then it stands as law. And it stands as constitutional.

Background Checks, when done with Due Process, are completely legal even for Federals but the Federals have not done it yet outside of FFL licensed dealers and that has been upheld in the courts. The States have done it on ALL sales and that also has stood up in the courts. It has nothing to do with anything you keep bringing up. You do a lot of "Hey, Look over there" crap.

I have read a LOT of posts on this board. Some notable trolls that don't make ANY sense would include danielpalos and IM2. That post you just put up was the most idiotic, dumb, stupid, asinine, uneducated, ridiculous, bullshit that has EVER been put on the Internet. It shows that you couldn't pass a 6th grade civics course. You better get the Hell off this thread before I embarrass you and make you a laughingstock.

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

Daryl Hunt, with the 14th Amendment in place there is NO SUCH THING AS DUE PROCESS. Are you that stupid? Even Donald Trump has wanted to go after the guns, THEN give Due Process later. What an idiot you are! The reason unconstitutional laws are being upheld in the courts is that you have no Rights due to the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment cancelled out Due Process. It's why there is no more innocent until proven guilty. It's why they can pass ex post facto laws. Yeah, I'm reclaiming my Rights back by exposing what the 14th Amendment is all about. So pick a side and stand on it. If you want Due Process, unalienable Rights, and Freedom, then you have to reject the 14th Amendment.

You can't have it both ways.

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” Patrick Henry

“...rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our own will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual"
— Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany - 1819)

"Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” Patrick Henry

"The true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1808

Daryl Hunt, you cannot over-ride unalienable Rights (like the Bill of Rights) with an illegally ratified amendment to the Constitution.

First of all, I have yet to see any court say that ANYTHING was unbillofrightable. How about sticking to the legal document where something might be ruled unconstitutional or not. You people throw the Bill of Rights like it has a legal standing. It was a feel good document to sway a couple of representatives to ratify the Constitution. In fact, it was word for word the first 10 amendments of the Constitution of the United States and it was written 2 full years AFTER the Constitution was written and ratified by enough States to make it legal. And, even so, the Bill of Rights doesn't say what you claim it does.

The 14th was written to keep the Feds and the States from riding roughshod over the citizens whenever it felt like it. It weakened the Government and made the Government have to follow Due Process. That means, it backs up the 1st amendment and actually expands on it.

Again, you either follow ALL of the Constitution of you follow none of it. You keep trying to rewrite it for your own agenda. Sorry, the Courts don't agree and until you get the 14th and the 1st rescended, don't look for them to rule any other way.

You have such a low understanding of the Constitution that it is obvious what you're saying is absolute bullshit - stuff you made up off the top of your head.

Since you do NOT understand the Constitution nor have you read it, the earliest courts, including the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Right to keep and bear Arms predated the Constitution. Since you didn't read my previous post, I'm dumbing down it down for you.

The 14th Amendment rescinded (not rescended - dumbass) the Bill of Rights so there is NO First Amendment. You sound like a happy little communist, so you can kiss my ass. When the government fails to follow the law and wants to infringe on my Rights I have a duty, an obligation, and a Right to refuse to comply with unconstitutional laws.

Then you have the duty and the right to go to prison. Please form the line to the right along with all your other criminals.

A treasonous communist calling me a criminal is quite the joke.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And mandating UBCs on all sales is no big deal. Sell a gun without one and you have broken the law and will be liable just as you would for breaking any other law.

Except, of course the state cannot prove you did so.

Exactly one hundred percent correct

OK dumb this down for me. If I sell a gun to X and the cops take it from him, even if it isn't used in a crime, how does the government NOT trace the gun's lineage? A Universal Background Check cannot be enforced unless there is a built in National Gun Registration.

We need to be clear what we're selling to our fellow gun owners. From this point, forward I'm not registering any firearms, am not signing any papers to buy one, and I'm damn sure not going to forfeit my Fourth Amendment Rights to exercise a constitutional right. This B.S. has gone far enough.

We could and should stop mass shootings. We can do it without a tax increase, a new bureaucracy or gun control. I don't know why we didn't stop this crap by putting the bill on the table. It would shut the dems down. Every time they say gun control, we put that bill on the table and they are on the defensive. We didn't and now we're looking at Universal Background Checks and Red Flag Laws.

Educate yourself

Here's how cops actually trace a gun

But we SHOULD have a national registry...the only reason we don't is....the NRA

Educate yourself means I have to agree with you. The problem is, if I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.

I worked for a company that sold firearms to police departments and the military. The man even had a storefront and we did retail sales.

I also went to law school, so I know a little about this subject. So, let me school you. Most of your little story is relevant up to about the time of the Brady Bill. Today the sell out NRA should be embarrassed as you should be for LYING to the American people. The facts are that with the Brady Bill, the government collects data on you before you purchase a weapon. The NRA was crowing about the fact that after a statutory period (I don't recall 30 , 60 , 90 days later), BATFE was to destroy their records. Man, we all felt safe. We could be checked out, then no permanent records (what you call a registry.)

Then along came another law. It created the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security. With Homeland (IN) Security came the requirements of records sharing. So, when we want to check out an immigrant, BICE accesses the records; when people want certain jobs, other agencies get the records - even the IRS can get the records. The point being, once the records were generated, they NEVER went away. BATFE may destroy their records, but whoever they shared them with is under NO statutory obligation to destroy them. The ability to find 85 percent of all the weapons in America already exists.

A Universal Background Check would only work if you had National Gun Registration. That is EXACTLY how this will work. So, if store buys an AR 15 from Ruger, the factory records what store bought it. The store fills out a Form 4473 and where I live you can either pay for a background check OR use your Georgia Weapons License to avoid that charge / inconvenience. The store never gets rid of the Form 4473 and when they go out of business, they surrender their records to the BATFE. So, in Georgia, if you sell your weapon you ask the buyer to see their Georgia Weapon's License. You know you've sold to a responsible buyer - and I've never had a problem (I haven't sold a lot of guns, but maybe as many as dozen or so over the course of my life.)

What the Universal Background Check is all about is creating that database you want. That way, when the Democrats come to power, they have a registration list and it's National Gun Registration so Beto's boyfriends can take your firearms. A rose by any other name...

The greatest reason to retain the Right to keep and bear Arms is, as a last resort, to prevent tyranny in government.

Hmmm.

The Mormon Bodyguard has a point.

.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And yet, not one thing about Background Checks to purchase firearms. Imagine that. The State has the right to require it as long as they used Reasonable Due Process to require it. You can't just pick and choose what parts of the Constitution you will follow. You either follow all of it or none of it. Unless you can get the 14th amendment rescended then it stands as law. And it stands as constitutional.

Background Checks, when done with Due Process, are completely legal even for Federals but the Federals have not done it yet outside of FFL licensed dealers and that has been upheld in the courts. The States have done it on ALL sales and that also has stood up in the courts. It has nothing to do with anything you keep bringing up. You do a lot of "Hey, Look over there" crap.

I have read a LOT of posts on this board. Some notable trolls that don't make ANY sense would include danielpalos and IM2. That post you just put up was the most idiotic, dumb, stupid, asinine, uneducated, ridiculous, bullshit that has EVER been put on the Internet. It shows that you couldn't pass a 6th grade civics course. You better get the Hell off this thread before I embarrass you and make you a laughingstock.

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

Daryl Hunt, with the 14th Amendment in place there is NO SUCH THING AS DUE PROCESS. Are you that stupid? Even Donald Trump has wanted to go after the guns, THEN give Due Process later. What an idiot you are! The reason unconstitutional laws are being upheld in the courts is that you have no Rights due to the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment cancelled out Due Process. It's why there is no more innocent until proven guilty. It's why they can pass ex post facto laws. Yeah, I'm reclaiming my Rights back by exposing what the 14th Amendment is all about. So pick a side and stand on it. If you want Due Process, unalienable Rights, and Freedom, then you have to reject the 14th Amendment.

You can't have it both ways.

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” Patrick Henry

“...rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our own will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual"
— Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany - 1819)

"Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” Patrick Henry

"The true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1808

Daryl Hunt, you cannot over-ride unalienable Rights (like the Bill of Rights) with an illegally ratified amendment to the Constitution.

First of all, I have yet to see any court say that ANYTHING was unbillofrightable. How about sticking to the legal document where something might be ruled unconstitutional or not. You people throw the Bill of Rights like it has a legal standing. It was a feel good document to sway a couple of representatives to ratify the Constitution. In fact, it was word for word the first 10 amendments of the Constitution of the United States and it was written 2 full years AFTER the Constitution was written and ratified by enough States to make it legal. And, even so, the Bill of Rights doesn't say what you claim it does.

The 14th was written to keep the Feds and the States from riding roughshod over the citizens whenever it felt like it. It weakened the Government and made the Government have to follow Due Process. That means, it backs up the 1st amendment and actually expands on it.

Again, you either follow ALL of the Constitution of you follow none of it. You keep trying to rewrite it for your own agenda. Sorry, the Courts don't agree and until you get the 14th and the 1st rescended, don't look for them to rule any other way.

You have such a low understanding of the Constitution that it is obvious what you're saying is absolute bullshit - stuff you made up off the top of your head.

Since you do NOT understand the Constitution nor have you read it, the earliest courts, including the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Right to keep and bear Arms predated the Constitution. Since you didn't read my previous post, I'm dumbing down it down for you.

The 14th Amendment rescinded (not rescended - dumbass) the Bill of Rights so there is NO First Amendment. You sound like a happy little communist, so you can kiss my ass. When the government fails to follow the law and wants to infringe on my Rights I have a duty, an obligation, and a Right to refuse to comply with unconstitutional laws.

Then you have the duty and the right to go to prison. Please form the line to the right along with all your other criminals.

A treasonous communist calling me a criminal is quite the joke.

You are a Rumper. That should be enough to automatically bring in a guilty plea for you being a criminal.

RUMP RUMP RUMP RUMP

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I have read a LOT of posts on this board. Some notable trolls that don't make ANY sense would include danielpalos and IM2. That post you just put up was the most idiotic, dumb, stupid, asinine, uneducated, ridiculous, bullshit that has EVER been put on the Internet. It shows that you couldn't pass a 6th grade civics course. You better get the Hell off this thread before I embarrass you and make you a laughingstock.

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

Daryl Hunt, with the 14th Amendment in place there is NO SUCH THING AS DUE PROCESS. Are you that stupid? Even Donald Trump has wanted to go after the guns, THEN give Due Process later. What an idiot you are! The reason unconstitutional laws are being upheld in the courts is that you have no Rights due to the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment cancelled out Due Process. It's why there is no more innocent until proven guilty. It's why they can pass ex post facto laws. Yeah, I'm reclaiming my Rights back by exposing what the 14th Amendment is all about. So pick a side and stand on it. If you want Due Process, unalienable Rights, and Freedom, then you have to reject the 14th Amendment.

You can't have it both ways.

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” Patrick Henry

“...rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our own will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual"
— Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany - 1819)

"Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” Patrick Henry

"The true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1808

Daryl Hunt, you cannot over-ride unalienable Rights (like the Bill of Rights) with an illegally ratified amendment to the Constitution.

First of all, I have yet to see any court say that ANYTHING was unbillofrightable. How about sticking to the legal document where something might be ruled unconstitutional or not. You people throw the Bill of Rights like it has a legal standing. It was a feel good document to sway a couple of representatives to ratify the Constitution. In fact, it was word for word the first 10 amendments of the Constitution of the United States and it was written 2 full years AFTER the Constitution was written and ratified by enough States to make it legal. And, even so, the Bill of Rights doesn't say what you claim it does.

The 14th was written to keep the Feds and the States from riding roughshod over the citizens whenever it felt like it. It weakened the Government and made the Government have to follow Due Process. That means, it backs up the 1st amendment and actually expands on it.

Again, you either follow ALL of the Constitution of you follow none of it. You keep trying to rewrite it for your own agenda. Sorry, the Courts don't agree and until you get the 14th and the 1st rescended, don't look for them to rule any other way.

You have such a low understanding of the Constitution that it is obvious what you're saying is absolute bullshit - stuff you made up off the top of your head.

Since you do NOT understand the Constitution nor have you read it, the earliest courts, including the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Right to keep and bear Arms predated the Constitution. Since you didn't read my previous post, I'm dumbing down it down for you.

The 14th Amendment rescinded (not rescended - dumbass) the Bill of Rights so there is NO First Amendment. You sound like a happy little communist, so you can kiss my ass. When the government fails to follow the law and wants to infringe on my Rights I have a duty, an obligation, and a Right to refuse to comply with unconstitutional laws.

Then you have the duty and the right to go to prison. Please form the line to the right along with all your other criminals.

A treasonous communist calling me a criminal is quite the joke.

You are a Rumper. That should be enough to automatically bring in a guilty plea for you being a criminal.

RUMP RUMP RUMP RUMP

Trump is anti-gun. Beto Orourke just exposed the Democrats real agenda without sugar coating it. So, while you may not like Trump, your ass is going to have to call him Mr. President for the next five years.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Except, of course the state cannot prove you did so.

Exactly one hundred percent correct

OK dumb this down for me. If I sell a gun to X and the cops take it from him, even if it isn't used in a crime, how does the government NOT trace the gun's lineage? A Universal Background Check cannot be enforced unless there is a built in National Gun Registration.

We need to be clear what we're selling to our fellow gun owners. From this point, forward I'm not registering any firearms, am not signing any papers to buy one, and I'm damn sure not going to forfeit my Fourth Amendment Rights to exercise a constitutional right. This B.S. has gone far enough.

We could and should stop mass shootings. We can do it without a tax increase, a new bureaucracy or gun control. I don't know why we didn't stop this crap by putting the bill on the table. It would shut the dems down. Every time they say gun control, we put that bill on the table and they are on the defensive. We didn't and now we're looking at Universal Background Checks and Red Flag Laws.

Educate yourself

Here's how cops actually trace a gun

But we SHOULD have a national registry...the only reason we don't is....the NRA

Educate yourself means I have to agree with you. The problem is, if I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.

I worked for a company that sold firearms to police departments and the military. The man even had a storefront and we did retail sales.

I also went to law school, so I know a little about this subject. So, let me school you. Most of your little story is relevant up to about the time of the Brady Bill. Today the sell out NRA should be embarrassed as you should be for LYING to the American people. The facts are that with the Brady Bill, the government collects data on you before you purchase a weapon. The NRA was crowing about the fact that after a statutory period (I don't recall 30 , 60 , 90 days later), BATFE was to destroy their records. Man, we all felt safe. We could be checked out, then no permanent records (what you call a registry.)

Then along came another law. It created the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security. With Homeland (IN) Security came the requirements of records sharing. So, when we want to check out an immigrant, BICE accesses the records; when people want certain jobs, other agencies get the records - even the IRS can get the records. The point being, once the records were generated, they NEVER went away. BATFE may destroy their records, but whoever they shared them with is under NO statutory obligation to destroy them. The ability to find 85 percent of all the weapons in America already exists.

A Universal Background Check would only work if you had National Gun Registration. That is EXACTLY how this will work. So, if store buys an AR 15 from Ruger, the factory records what store bought it. The store fills out a Form 4473 and where I live you can either pay for a background check OR use your Georgia Weapons License to avoid that charge / inconvenience. The store never gets rid of the Form 4473 and when they go out of business, they surrender their records to the BATFE. So, in Georgia, if you sell your weapon you ask the buyer to see their Georgia Weapon's License. You know you've sold to a responsible buyer - and I've never had a problem (I haven't sold a lot of guns, but maybe as many as dozen or so over the course of my life.)

What the Universal Background Check is all about is creating that database you want. That way, when the Democrats come to power, they have a registration list and it's National Gun Registration so Beto's boyfriends can take your firearms. A rose by any other name...

The greatest reason to retain the Right to keep and bear Arms is, as a last resort, to prevent tyranny in government.

Hmmm.

The Mormon Bodyguard has a point.

.

You're the first to ever catch that one. Our church aligned itself with the Mormons, but I could not accept Joseph Smith as being a prophet (NO disrespect to Mormons who do accept that.)

I had to start a small denomination just to have the same tenets of beliefs as our ancestors that built this country.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Every developed nation has people withmental health problems, violent video games and movies, depressed kids.

Only the US has the 2nd Amendment and a PAC dedicated to eliminating any restrictions on buying firearms.

So we have weekly mass shootings

Lol
So, Blame these guys not the firearms...

If they couldn’t easily access firearms, most of their victims would still be alive.

Aren't you just precious. IF people OBEYED the law we wouldn't NEED more laws. TeQuan from the hood doesn't care how many laws you pass. Nether does meth addict peter frm the trailer park. New laws serve ONE purpose and that's to make "feel" better.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Progressives want Background checks on all private sales. Why? Who pays for that? Paying for an right?
That is definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.

Any type of waiting period on an right? I don’t think so, definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.
No one should have to wait more than seconds to purchase their firearms.

Obviously universal background checks I have nothing to do with firearms… Like always... it’s always been about control.
The ******* spineless gun grabbers can pound sand... lol

No, you're right. Background checks won't do the trick. Ban and confiscate assault rifles and mags over 10 rounds. Insist on safety courses and licensing, including a clean mental health evaluation, every five years, for any gun. Clean up the NICS data base so it actually contains the information needed to make an informed decision on a potential buyer's appropriateness for a gun.
Americans are stupid mental cases.

No human can pass a mental health exam if the exam is honest...

Why?

All humans suffer from some sort of mental illness...

Also doctors can be bought off easily to fake results.

Reading the all the responses on this board ( including yours ) you can see everyone has an issue or two and could become a violent offender, so what will you do then?

Also old lady a pump action shotgun is a weapon that is more dangerous than a AR-15 and believe I have one and keep slugs shot along with Buck shot.

So you would ban my weapon of choice because the fact is it is a weapon that can be used on a battlefield...

In the end the fact is you have laws that can be enforced now but the government refuses and why?

Simple, they want to disarm society and that is the end goal...

 

[Lesh]

OK dumb this down for me. If I sell a gun to X and the cops take it from him, even if it isn't used in a crime, how does the government NOT trace the gun's lineage? A Universal Background Check cannot be enforced unless there is a built in National Gun Registration.

They already CAN trace serial numbers...but it is cumbersome and onerous. We SHOULD have a national registry. Why the hell not?

If a criminal drops a gun in a robbery we LE SHOULD be able to tell the lineage of that gun

 

[toomuchtime_]

OK dumb this down for me. If I sell a gun to X and the cops take it from him, even if it isn't used in a crime, how does the government NOT trace the gun's lineage? A Universal Background Check cannot be enforced unless there is a built in National Gun Registration.

They already CAN trace serial numbers...but it is cumbersome and onerous. We SHOULD have a national registry. Why the hell not?

If a criminal drops a gun in a robbery we LE SHOULD be able to tell the lineage of that gun

Why should you know the "lineage" of the gun? How will that save lives?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

OK dumb this down for me. If I sell a gun to X and the cops take it from him, even if it isn't used in a crime, how does the government NOT trace the gun's lineage? A Universal Background Check cannot be enforced unless there is a built in National Gun Registration.

They already CAN trace serial numbers...but it is cumbersome and onerous. We SHOULD have a national registry. Why the hell not?

If a criminal drops a gun in a robbery we LE SHOULD be able to tell the lineage of that gun

That's true if the objective is to confiscate firearms. Gun banners NEVER come to the table and say, let's focus on those who pose a danger to society and see if we can save lives. Why? Democrats are lying sons of bitches about gun control and Beto O'rourke let the cat out of the bag.

It is not about saving lives. It is about CONTROL.

 

[deanrd]

For the parents of children in school.

Do your children do mass shooting safety drills at school? Ways to hide from a mass shooter?

I've heard it's being done at a number of schools.

 

[2aguy]

OK dumb this down for me. If I sell a gun to X and the cops take it from him, even if it isn't used in a crime, how does the government NOT trace the gun's lineage? A Universal Background Check cannot be enforced unless there is a built in National Gun Registration.

They already CAN trace serial numbers...but it is cumbersome and onerous. We SHOULD have a national registry. Why the hell not?

If a criminal drops a gun in a robbery we LE SHOULD be able to tell the lineage of that gun

No....moron....they can't. Why not have a national registry? One, it would cost a fortune, do nothing and it would allow people like you to ban and confiscate guns....which is the only reason you want the registry since it doesn't do anything you say it does.

Canada tried to do this for just 15 million long guns...we have over 600 million guns.....

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.


As to solving crimes....it doesn't...
Ten Myths Of The Long Gun Registry | Canadian Shooting Sports Association


Myth #4: Police investigations are aided by the registry.
Doubtful. Information contained in the registry is incomplete and unreliable. Due to the inaccuracy of the information, it cannot be used as evidence in court and the government has yet to prove that it has been a contributing factor in any investigation. Another factor is the dismal compliance rate (estimated at only 50%) for licensing and registration which further renders the registry useless. Some senior police officers have stated as such: “The law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered ... the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.


-----

https://www.quora.com/In-countries-...olved-at-least-in-part-by-use-of-the-registry



Tracking physical objects that are easily transferred with a database is non-trivial problem. Guns that are stolen, loaned, or lost disappear from the registry. The data is has to be manually entered and input mistakes will both leak guns and generate false positive results.

Registries don’t solve straw-purchases. If someone goes through all of the steps to register a gun and simply gives it to a criminal that gun becomes unregistered. Assuming the gun is ever recovered you could theoretically try and prosecute the person who transferred the gun to the criminal, but you aren’t solving the crime you were trying to. Remember that people will prostitute themselves or even their children for drugs, so how much deterrence is there in a maybe-get-a-few-years for straw purchasing?

Registries are expensive. Canada’s registry was pitched as costing the taxpayer $2 million and the rest of the costs were to be payed for with registration fees. It was subject to massive cost overruns that were not being met by registrations fees. When the program was audited in 2002 the program was expected to cost over $1 billion and that the fee revenue was only expected to be $140 million.

No gun recovered. If no gun was recovered at the scene of the crime then your registry isn’t even theoretically helping, let alone providing a practical tool. You need a world where criminals meticulously register their guns and leave them at the crime scene for a registry to start to become useful.

Say I have a registered gun, and a known associate of mine was shot and killed. Ballistics is able to determine that my known associate was killed with the same make and model as the gun I registered. A registry doesn’t prove that my gun was used, or that I was the one doing the shooting. I was a suspect as soon as we said “known associate” and the police will then being looking for motive and checking for my alibi.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We SHOULD have a national registry

You cannot demonstrate the necessity for or efficacy of the state having on record the owner of each of the >360 million guns in the US

 

[Lesh]

Why should you know the "lineage" of the gun? How will that save lives?

So you're saying we shouldn't try to apprehend violent criminals?

 

[Lesh]

They already CAN trace serial numbers...but it is cumbersome and onerous. We SHOULD have a national registry. Why the hell not?

If a criminal drops a gun in a robbery LE SHOULD be able to tell the lineage of that gun

You cannot demonstrate the necessity for or efficacy of the state having on record the owner of each of the >360 million guns in the US

I did...in the part of the quote you cut off...which is a site violation by the way