Can UBGC ever work?

[milktree]

Well the train is coming and my guess is that there will need to be some give on gun owners side. How the whole thing is metered out Im not sure but there are mentally f”d up people who indeed should not have access to firearms. If you live in mass you already go through this BS

“Need some give”

Also known as “compromise”.

Yea... that’s always worked out fine in the past. (Sarcasm)

Maybe in exchange for universal background checks we get to buy any gun from anyone in any state, a right to keep all our guns until *after* all the due process, a repeal of the Hughes amendment, complete deregulation of suppressors, the removal of SBRs and SBSs from the NFA (they’re just guns) and serious penalties for anyone who testifies falsely against someone regarding gun rights.

That would be closer to a compromise.

 

[Varmint]

Well the train is coming and my guess is that there will need to be some give on gun owners side. How the whole thing is metered out Im not sure but there are mentally f”d up people who indeed should not have access to firearms. If you live in mass you already go through this BS

If you can't be trusted with firearms why are you walking the streets, with access to rental box trucks, chemicals, knives etc? If someone's a threat, put them away, don't just limit access to a single tool.

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

The ONLY way this would work is if a private HIPPA compliant entity as a service was created.
That business would be usable as a service. They would need access to all of every persons health care care data.

Now, now, no need for anything so involved, I am sure those here calling for absolute proof of mental health have something less intrusive and expensive in mind, just a mild tweek to the existing system.

++++++

FFL: Mr. Gun Buyer thank you for submitting the ATF Form 4473 where you swore that you had never been involuntarily committed.

FFL: Now just one more step sir, can you tell me what you see in this ink plot?

Mr. Gun Buyer: I don't know, is it a butterfly?

FFL: Sorry, that is not on the list of approved answers. No guns for you!

:emoji_tiger:

 

[HuntMaine]

“Need some give”

Also known as “compromise”.

Yea... that’s always worked out fine in the past. (Sarcasm)

Maybe in exchange for universal background checks we get to buy any gun from anyone in any state, a right to keep all our guns until *after* all the due process, a repeal of the Hughes amendment, complete deregulation of suppressors, the removal of SBRs and SBSs from the NFA (they’re just guns) and serious penalties for anyone who testifies falsely against someone regarding gun rights.

That would be closer to a compromise.

Id live to see that. Do away with having to have multiple licenses and just have one for all would be a good thing.

 

[HuntMaine]

If you can't be trusted with firearms why are you walking the streets, with access to rental box trucks, chemicals, knives etc? If someone's a threat, put them away, don't just limit access to a single tool.

People who have mental disorders are not necessarily a danger but dont have the capacity to be a responsible firearm owner.

 

[milktree]

People who have mental disorders are not necessarily a danger but dont have the capacity to be a responsible firearm owner.

Explain to me the difference between "not a danger" and "not a responsible firearm owner".

This is a serious question.

 

[Rehoboth Dave]

It's the registration part they want.
They don't GAF if it works .

This. It's a necessary prerequisite for a confiscation effort which we should all know is coming.

 

[HuntMaine]

Explain to me the difference between "not a danger" and "not a responsible firearm owner".

This is a serious question.

My uncle who was 87 have severe dementia. Not a danger to society at all but couldnt recall who his family was to a stranger. This caused him to have outbursts occasionally. He should have have access or possession of firearms, his family was able to transfer them from him.

 

[milktree]

My uncle who was 87 have severe dementia. Not a danger to society at all but couldnt recall who his family was to a stranger. This caused him to have outbursts occasionally. He should have have access or possession of firearms, his family was able to transfer them from him.

Two followup questions:

- Was your uncle likely to shoot someone with a gun in in one of these outbursts?

- Would you feel it was appropriate for a bureaucrat from .gov who didn't know your uncle to use a formula or hearsay to determine he shouldn't have guns, and confiscate them?

 

[namedpipes]

I read that when someone becomes too old to be a useful member of their society, the Eskimos would park him/her somewhere along the trail and leave him behind.

Actually that doesn't sound half bad compared with how we treat OUR elders.

 

[HuntMaine]

Two followup questions:

- Was your uncle likely to shoot someone with a gun in in one of these outbursts?

- Would you feel it was appropriate for a bureaucrat from .gov who didn't know your uncle to use a formula or hearsay to determine he shouldn't have guns, and confiscate them?

He was at the point of not being able to discern people or consequences of his action. Just like his licensed was removed by his family, his firearms were also removed. Not being able to tell what is reality, what is not, what is right or wrong indeed is a cause to remove them.

As for the govt, i think if there is family who knows the person that is the way it should be done.

 

[namedpipes]

He was at the point of not being able to discern people or consequences of his action. Just like his licensed was removed by his family, his firearms were also removed. Not being able to tell what is reality, what is not, what is right or wrong indeed is a cause to remove them.

As for the govt, i think if there is family who knows the person that is the way it should be done.

So what you're saying is, the government accessed his medical records, determined that he was a risk to himself or others, took his LTC and seized his firearms? THAT'S horrifically wrong on so many levels.

Or did you mean that his FAMILY, recognizing that he had some new challenges, basically grounded him? That's fine. That's family. That's what family is supposed to do. Look out for each other.

YOU aren't my family and neither is Maura.

 

[one-eyed Jack]

Little Jack already has the Thompson and Grease Gun. He's waiting for the rest of the goodies. Jack.

 

[namedpipes]

Little Jack already has the Thompson and Grease Gun. He's waiting for the rest of the goodies. Jack.

Well thank God for THAT! You were probably on the verge of snapping!

 

[milktree]

He was at the point of not being able to discern people or consequences of his action. Just like his licensed was removed by his family, his firearms were also removed. Not being able to tell what is reality, what is not, what is right or wrong indeed is a cause to remove them.

As for the govt, i think if there is family who knows the person that is the way it should be done.

RIGHT!

Not .gov. involving the government in your uncle's case would have been *VERY BAD*. The "problem" was handled correctly, privately, without any jack-booted thugs.

 

[HuntMaine]

So what you're saying is, the government accessed his medical records, determined that he was a risk to himself or others, took his LTC and seized his firearms? THAT'S horrifically wrong on so many levels.

Or did you mean that his FAMILY, recognizing that he had some new challenges, basically grounded him? That's fine. That's family. That's what family is supposed to do. Look out for each other.

YOU aren't my family and neither is Maura.

Relax Francis. It was his direct family.

 

[namedpipes]

Relax Francis. It was his direct family.

Relax Francis. That's what I said. Try reading BEFORE yammering.

 

[HuntMaine]

Relax Francis. That's what I said. Try reading BEFORE yammering.

Post your reply faster

 

[walking wolf]

NICS fails open? wasn't aware of that, good luck getting a dealer that will actually do that, though.

Yup, that's the way the law is written. From the FBI's website "About NICS":

If the FFL has not received from the NICS a final determination after three business days have elapsed since the delay response, it is within the FFL’s discretion whether or not to transfer the firearm (if state law permits the transfer). If the FFL transfers the firearm, the FFL must mark “No resolution was provided within three business days” on line 21d of the ATF Form 4473. It is recommended the FFL record the date provided in the delay response on which the firearm may be lawfully transferred under federal law if a final determination of proceed or denied is not received from the NICS.​

So it's conditional, but yeah, if NICS isn't available then the FFL is within his or her rights to make the sale. Although other provisions of federal law will hammer an FFL who sells a gun to anyone s/he has reason to believe shouldn't have one.

Didn't vote for Obama? Strike one. Voted for Trump? Strike two. Want to own guns? Strike three. You are hereby declared mentally ill. No guns for you!

Not quite the way I would have phrased it, but it makes the same point quite effectively. In particular, I know a lot of lefties who seem to believe that wanting a gun for self-defense is itself evidence you're mentally ill.

 

[42!]

Or did you mean that his FAMILY, recognizing that he had some new challenges, basically grounded him? That's fine. That's family. That's what family is supposed to do. Look out for each other.

I don't need you giving my son any ideas. He doesn't get my guns until I'm dead........oh wait....I mean dead of natural causes, like old age.

 

[namedpipes]

Post your reply faster

I don't need you giving my son any ideas. He doesn't get my guns until I'm dead........oh wait....I mean dead of natural causes, like old age.

He may have alluded to some goals in that regard the weekend we were knees deep in pistons and crankshafts. Let him know it still trucks along just fine. Doesn't stop so great at the moment but it goes pretty good.