Want universal background checks? A question....

[M14 Shooter]

I cant tell you how many times someone had a gun stolen from under the bed or the nightstand and had no idea until they went looking for it. And even then they werent sure it was stolen.
The only way to make any kind of scheme work is mandatory gun registration. And that is an infringement. And it will be subject to widespread, very widespread, civil disobedience.

How is gun registration an infringement on your right to own a gun?

It is a precondition to the the exercise of the right not inherent to same, and does nothing to prevent crime.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If you sell your car and don't have a bill of sale and don't notify DMV a parking ticket will be your responsiblity, any hit and run, you are the suspect and will need to prove you weren't the driver.

Irrelevant to the conversation.

In your head, sense it directly applies, we can be nice and assume you're only willfully ignorant.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you sell your car and don't have a bill of sale and don't notify DMV a parking ticket will be your responsiblity, any hit and run, you are the suspect and will need to prove you weren't the driver.

Irrelevant to the conversation.

In your head, sense it directly applies, we can be nice and assume you're only willfully ignorant.

Not in the slightest.
The fact that you can trace a car back to a previous owner because of a BoS isnt relevant because the huge majority of private transfers have no such bill and there was certainly no such bill in the example provided.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If you sell your car and don't have a bill of sale and don't notify DMV a parking ticket will be your responsiblity, any hit and run, you are the suspect and will need to prove you weren't the driver.

Irrelevant to the conversation.

In your head, sense it directly applies, we can be nice and assume you're only willfully ignorant.

Not in the slightest.
The fact that you can trace a car back to a previous owner because of a BoS isnt relevant because the huge majority of private transfers have no such bill and there was certainly no such bill in the example provided.

Huh? Who cares, the debate isn't about what is, it's about a means to limit illegal sales. Thus a law to require both a BoS and a background check would be a means to limit the sale of a gun to a criminal, a psycho, a drunk or someone intent on killing themselves and wanting to kill others first.

 

[The Rabbi]

If you sell your car and don't have a bill of sale and don't notify DMV a parking ticket will be your responsiblity, any hit and run, you are the suspect and will need to prove you weren't the driver.

Cars have titles and registration. Guns dont.
Next.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not going to prevent anything. If the person has a criminal record but is not really a criminal (and that happens all the time) then they werent going to commit a crime anyway.
If they are criminal then they'll buy from someone willing to go around the background check anyway.
If they're honest citizens then they aren't criminals.

This isnt rocket science. Laws dont affect criminals. Period.

So, get rid of laws, since there's not a single one that prevents all lawbreaking?

Reductio ad absurdum argument!
Rabbi Rules!

 

[The Rabbi]

It's an intrusion on my privacy for no purpose.

And just because the right is not absolute does not mean that any infringement is also OK. It has to serve some purpose. And registration serves no purpose.

It's an infringement on your privacy, but not on your right to firearm ownership.

Are you saying that you are guaranteed the right to privacy?

LOL! Are you saying you're not? Recall that abortion is legal only because the Supremes founded it on a right to privacy that they invented in Griswold.
It is an infringement on my right to own a firearm as it requires extra action for no legitimate purpose.

 

[The Rabbi]

If you sell your car and don't have a bill of sale and don't notify DMV a parking ticket will be your responsiblity, any hit and run, you are the suspect and will need to prove you weren't the driver.

Irrelevant to the conversation.

In your head, sense it directly applies, we can be nice and assume you're only willfully ignorant.

Not in the slightest.
The fact that you can trace a car back to a previous owner because of a BoS isnt relevant because the huge majority of private transfers have no such bill and there was certainly no such bill in the example provided.

Huh? Who cares, the debate isn't about what is, it's about a means to limit illegal sales. Thus a law to require both a BoS and a background check would be a means to limit the sale of a gun to a criminal, a psycho, a drunk or someone intent on killing themselves and wanting to kill others first.

It has been proven to be completely ineffective in doing so. Ergo it serves no legitimate purpose.

 

[JoeB131]

If you support imposing universal background checks on all gun sales, whether through a dealer or not, I have a question for you.

Say I meet up with Turtledude; he and I buy a gun off each other, get a beer, and go home.

How does the government prove that background checks were not run before we sold the guns?

private guns sales should be illegal for exactly that reason.

If you sell a gun without a background check, you go to the big house.

Problem solved.

 

[MXdad]

If you support imposing universal background checks on all gun sales, whether through a dealer or not, I have a question for you.

Say I meet up with Turtledude; he and I buy a gun off each other, get a beer, and go home.

How does the government prove that background checks were not run before we sold the guns?

It is simple they will not know. Without mandatory registration of all weapons UBG is a joke it can't work.

Hell the Gov knows it will not work - from the NIJ

Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration and an easy gun transfer process

http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf

As a side note with 300+M guns in private hands good luck getting them registered

 

[MXdad]

When gun owners listen to the parents of the victims of mass shootings and answer their question - how many innocent people have to die before something is done?

What gun law that has been proposed or that you can think of would have prevented a mass shooting

 

[MXdad]

You should be made to buy through a registered dealer. I dunno, make dealers register with the government so that the gov is aware of who buys what and when and where.

All dealers are currently monitored by the GOV, their sales are currently monitored. The question here deals with private transfers and how the Gov will know if one occured

 

[MXdad]

When Turtledude goes onto the local Jr. College and shoots and kills dozens the investigation may very well lead to you. Then, you ought to be complicit and put in prison. And, since you had a duty to perform the background checks and did not do so, and harm was caused, you will lose everything you own, home, car and all of your guns.

Now, it may be hard to prove "beyond a resonable doubt" and put you in prison (where you belong), but the standard of proof in a civil suit is much lower, and everyone effected by your irresponsible behavior will sue your ass. Attorney fees alone will put you in the poor house.

How will it lead to the seller if like the vast majority of guns in private hands they are registered to no one. Again without mandatory registration UBG is impossible to enforce.

 

[MXdad]

Nothing can prevent 100% of lawbreakers.

But with this system, both parties must go to the PD to do the background check and have it entered into record. If it's not done, then there are two people who are breaking the law. Now, in your scenario, both of them are criminals, anyway. But for law-abiding gun owners, if a potential buyer is unwilling to go through a background check, then that might tell them something.

This does not answer the question presented by the OP. The question was, how will the Gov know the transaction occurred without a BG check. The answer is they won't as the vast majority of guns in private hands are not traceable to the owner

I can give you numerous SN off my weapons and none will you be able to prove that I own

 

[MXdad]

All they have to do is look through the paperwork. If that background check was done there would be paperwork filed for it.

If the person didn't do a background check and that gun was used in a crime, that person who didn't do the background check goes to prison along with the person they


sold the gun to.

It's a way of getting those who sell guns to criminals off the streets.



It's proven if and when you commit a crime with that gun.

Until that point, the government won't know a thing about it.

So if you sell a gun to someone who isn't a criminal and won't use that gun in a crime, the government will never know you sold that gun without that background check.

The big questions how will you know that the person is going to use it in a crime? You don't. So you're taking your chances.

You're missing the point of the law. It's to stop the wrong people from getting guns and to stop those who provide those guns to those criminals.

Not much can be done about people who sell guns to criminals right now. With that law we have a better tool to find out who is selling those guns to criminals and put their sorry butts in jail where they belong.

Wrong the majority of guns used in the commission of a crime were obtained by illegal means to began with stolen, straw purchases etc....

 

[MXdad]

How does anyone know who sold the gun if there is no record anywhere?
I legally sell a gun to M14. He llegally sells it to someone else. Someone else has the gun stolen and the gun is used in a crime. So who is culpable here?
Because that is trajectory of almost all guns used in crime: they are stolen from lawful owners and then resold to criminals or used by criminals.
What law will stop that?

You are exactly right. I would also add that the gun most likely was never registered to you from the beginning so there is no record of ownership from day one

 

[MXdad]

If a gun is used in a crime, the person of record is where the police will start looking when trying to find out who used that gun in that crime. If you sold a gun to someone without a background check and they turn around and sold it to a criminal, you're probably going to be liable for not doing the background check.

Write out a bill of sale and have the buyer sign and date it. There, you have proof of sale. However you also have proof that you didn't do that background check.

If you're a legal gun owner and you sell a gun, then you shouldn't have any problem with making sure that you're not liable for a gun that was used in a crime.

If your gun is stolen you have the obligation to report it to the police. That way you're not liable for any crimes that were committed with that gun. If you know it's stolen and you don't report it then you deserve all that the law can impose on you. You have the obligation to cover your own butt by letting the police know it was stolen.

If you sell your gun to someone who you know won't commit a crime with that gun the government will never know you didn't do a background check on that gun. If that new owner is a responsible gun owner and properly stores that gun, it won't be stolen and the government will never know you sold it without a background check. You're not the person that the government is looking for.

The government doesn't care about or want to know about law abiding gun owners, which is the vast majority of owners. The government cares about the criminals who get guns and those who sell them to those criminals. If you're not selling guns to criminals then you have absolutely nothing to worry about.

Why not just avoid all the hassle? A bill of sale, a few minutes to check the background and you've got nothing to worry about.

Bold mine

Two points - The first being in most cases there is no person of record on the ownership of the weapon as gun registration is not used in most places

Number two - BGC usually take more than a few minutes and will involve either the buyer or seller paying an FFL ($20-$35) fee to a dealer as those are the only ones with access to run BGC


The question from the OP is how will the Gov know if a transfer is made. The answer is simple they will not because in most cases the gun is not registered to anyone

 

[Wildman]

If you support imposing universal background checks on all gun sales, whether through a dealer or not, I have a question for you.

Say I meet up with Turtledude; he and I buy a gun off each other, get a beer, and go home.

How does the government prove that background checks were not run before we sold the guns?

You should be made to buy through a registered dealer. I dunno, make dealers register with the government so that the gov is aware of who buys what and when and where.

=============
do you even have a ******* clue as to what "...shall not be infringed" means ?

stay the **** out of this you are a foreigner who has no say in our Constitutional rights....... ............

 

[The Rabbi]

If you support imposing universal background checks on all gun sales, whether through a dealer or not, I have a question for you.

Say I meet up with Turtledude; he and I buy a gun off each other, get a beer, and go home.

How does the government prove that background checks were not run before we sold the guns?

private guns sales should be illegal for exactly that reason.

If you sell a gun without a background check, you go to the big house.

Problem solved.

How do you outlaw private commerce? If that isnt an infringement I dont know what is.

 

[MXdad]

Lawful gun owners secure their guns making theft nearly impossible. Have a gun safe, if you feel you need the gun under your pillow at night, do so, but lock it up in the morning, or keep it on your person at home. You will then know it was stolen, or taken to school by your kid.

Wrong. The majority of gun owners do not keep their weapons locked up at all times. I know for me personally the majority that are in my safe are basically Safe Queens and the main reason for them being there is to protect from Fire. These are weapons that I know cannot be replaced mainly because of their sentimental value (Family Heirlooms)

Also if you think the vast majority of guns safes that you see commercially available will prevent theft your mistaken