What are your reason(s) against background checks?

[greencobra]

Mexico is a prime example. Most types of firearms are illegal for civilians to possess there...

isn't it anything in a military caliber they can't legally own? dunno for sure.

....which god given rights....

drix, this is not directed at you, but everybody...i read this statement a lot here, when did god give us our rights? did moses bring down another set of tablets from the mountain i'm not aware of? i don't remember anything mentioned in catechism class regarding the constitution.

and no, i don't want to see a ubc any more than the rest of you.

 

[drgrant]

UBC is a Trojan horse. Criminalize gifting in families and in 2 generations everything unregistered is illegal.

That, plus degrades gun culture by making buying or borrowing guns less accessible....

-Mike

 

[PatMcD]

I've been out of the game for a while so this is a good refresher for me. In MA we're subjected to background checks just to get our license to carry. So, we've already allowed our freedom

Whats the deal - say in VT or Maine? You don't need a state issued license to carry correct? So as long as you have a pulse you can purchase a fire arm? Private sale or at a store? Serious question..... flame away.

No idea on VT anymore, but here in Maine, you do not need a state issued license to carry, buy, own, transfer, whatever. Me: "Hey Bob, I like your rifle. Wanna sell it?" Bob: "Sure, give me $200 and it's yours". It's literally that easy. It's awesome.
I can buy or sell anything legal to anybody else who is also a state resident with no questions asked. That's federal law. I buy something from a FFL, I have to go through the NICS system. That's also federal law.
In Maine there are really no gun laws beyond Federal.


Universal background checks WILL lead to a registry of ALL firearms, otherwise it is 100% unenforceable.

 

[Picton]

Because they don’t work. They don’t prevent crime. They don’t achieve the stated goal of increasing public safety. They contribute to a false sense of security.

The philosophical arguments also make sense to me, but the pragmatic ones are better.

 

[BrianWilson]

What about if we went with something like this? Ya know..... just for starters. If it saves one life.....

 

[jct61765]

So, when I buy a gun at my local ffl what am I filling out?

 

[Uzi2]

Totally against it.

It's nothing more than an excuse for politiciams to say they did "something". They don't care if that "something" is right or wrong, it's "something"......and its usually wrong when it involves the rights of citizens vs the desire for power in government.
It will undoubtedly create a registry because power hungry government officials will never destroy data that they obtain and it will lead to never ending abuse when convenient for government.
If someone really wants a gun, they will make their own or buy one even if its stolen.

Government cannot even do background checks on millions of illegals that they know are in the country, yet they insist on stomping their boot on the necks of good, non criminal gun owners.
The "agenda" of disarming American citizens has been too widely exposed with too much concrete proof of its existence to allow government to take even a slight step forward in furthering their desire.

NO, you may not have my guns.
NO you may not buy my guns.
NO you will not take my guns.

 

[robjax]

I am not able to find it but I read some time ago that the founding fathers had several drafts of the second amendment. One version had a provision for anyone convicted of a felony to be stripped of their 2A rights. That version was not used as the counter argument was that after time was served the debt to society was paid and the citizen was even again.

There is nothing in the constitution or the bill of rights that supports a back ground check and a version of 2A calling to restrict the rights of ex-cons was rejected.

The only reason to subject us to a back ground check would be to establish if we had prior convictions. Since that was rejected by the founders then I too reject it.

 

[JackOfAllTrades]

Massachusetts already has this.

You can't sell a firearm without a background check. Period. Don't believe me, try to do the whole eFA10 thing without an active FID or LTC. The State rejects it and you can't legally transfer the firearm. You don't have to go to a dealer, but you do have to run a check. The check might be by proxy (valid LTC or FID = pass) but it is the same thing.

Now, so what you say. Well, every six years we in Massachusetts get to enter a legal limbo where our old license has expired but the State hasn't yet granted us our new license. Can't buy or sell in that period. Sure it is supposed to be a maximum of 40 days, but that regularly extends out to months. That is months where you can't buy a firearm or even ammunition. So, you want to buy a new firearm to replace that one that developed a crack in the frame... sorry, you are without the most effective tool for self defense until the State sees fit to allow you to exercise your rights again. Found a good deal on stripped 10/22 receivers? Sorry, out of luck until the State says it is Ok again. State IT workers on strike? Oops, no buying or selling for you.

If I am not mistaken, the background check systems have managed to remain legal because private sales have been exempt. You try to make the case that the government is restricting your right to buy a firearm and they say "go buy private" and you now have a non-interference mechanism to exercise your 2A right. Much like the old "so long as we issue an FID rather than an LTC we haven't infringed on your rights" argument. With a universal background check I think that argument falls. If all sales or transfers are now at the discretion of the government we have literally violated the intent of the second amendment.

 

[wahsben]

Criminals, tyrants, terrorists and madmen don't conduct background checks when obtaining or selling their firearms. If government just wanted to try to avoid selling to criminals they could have gone with BIDS but they chose NICS because they get registration with it.BIDS v. NICS

 

[drgrant]

Massachusetts already has this.

You can't sell a firearm without a background check. Period. Don't believe me, try to do the whole eFA10 thing without an active FID or LTC.

It's worth knowing though that MIRCS is -NOT- a full background check at all. Your eligibility is not continuously audited, for the most part, by that
system...

-Mike

 

[Dadstoys]

The concept is pretty simple .
You can't confiscate what you don't know about .
The goal from the get go is to create a federal registry .
Then the games begin.
They lied to the people in England .
They lied to the people in Australia .
They lied to the people in France .
They lied to the people in New Zealand .
They lied to the people in Germany.
We don't want to take your guns , we just want to prevent crime.
Then they f*cking took them.
Smart people not only learn from their own mistakes , they learn from other peoples mistakes.

 

[Bonesinium]

1. We already have background checks.
2. In what way would more of the same increase the effectiveness of them.
3. Making them more strict would have little to no impact on reducing crime but would have a big impact on infringing people’s rights.
4. It’s unconstituonal. So really this should be number 1.

 

[HuntMaine]

I’d like to see a firearm license that is Nationally accepted. Renew it every 10 years and would be revoked or suspended if a felony is committed etc. would require a background check and be a shall issue. I have zero issue with a background check for a license

 

[oldguy68]

Being on any govt. list is never a good idea..

 

[Kevin_NH]

What we need is "REAL ID 2" Act, creating a universal proof of identity which will be required for voting and for purchases (guns, ammo, sudafed, whatever). That way we can get top minds from all sides to unite in opposition to UBC.

 

[Devils Paintbrush]

Against, since the position would be used as a compromise. The people that don't want you to own a weapon will not stop until your right is gone.

Their perspective will always be more severe than you would be willing to accept.



The media always changes the perspective to fit what they think is important. They want guns gone.

 

[Bonesinium]

I think the background checks to buy a regular gun should be the same process as it takes to get a secret security clearance. And for extra killy guns that of a TS clearance.

 

[Bison]

In the past 25 years or so there have been about 1,000 deaths attributed to mass shootings in the US, less if you just count the media hysteria "mass" shootings.

Since 1914 there have been 150 million+ deaths attributed to unarmed civilians being murdered by their own governments.

You are kidding yourself if you think the US would be any different if the citizens were not armed. We would have roundups of deplorables or whatever the flavor of the day is. Our guns keep the government in check.

The risk of freedom is some will abuse it. The risk of subjugation is much worse!

1K is MUCH less than 150 Million.

Shall Not Be Infringed. Leave my guns alone. Get rid of Gun Free Zones!

 

[10thSFFD]

Where I live, MA, we have background checks already. I have to provide every 7 years names of people who will be called upon to verify if I exist or if I am not a nut who wants to be on NES a lot .....Guess what? In last 3 decades NOBODY EVER BOTHERED CALLING THEM! Yet, I always have to wait over 8 months for the renewal because of the "background check".

.gov can't do anything right but it can make your life miserable

 

[Semper Oppresso]

I was getting denials for years until the feds finally gave me a UPIN. Now I only get delayed

 

[Picton]

I’d like to see a firearm license that is Nationally accepted. Renew it every 10 years and would be revoked or suspended if a felony is committed etc. would require a background check and be a shall issue. I have zero issue with a background check for a license

For carry, purchase, possession, or all of the above?

Just for the sake of conversation. I'm curious what the state of discussion is on this topic. I think BG checks are silly and useless, but I don't think they're going anywhere and in the present climate I can see them being expanded all too easily by politicians seeking electoral cover.

 

[10thSFFD]

I was getting denials for years until the feds finally gave me a UPIN. Now I only get delayed

When I was getting a security clearance I was questioned by a very young investigator who supposedly spoke Russian. I told her that I was in the military. She wrote down that I was trying to hide that I was in the Air Force. I have responded that we did not have the same military structure as it is established here and I was in a military, period. She showed me a document written in Croatian and said that this is a recent Soviet military structure. I have asked her if she can read or understand Croatian. She said:"No." I asked her if she can read Russian, she said she can only understand Russian and the reading is very difficult for anyone.......This was going on for 3 weeks!

 

[daveyburt]

I think applied nationally, it'll create a nightmare database disaster.
How will all these 'things' be linked together to allow a clean query relevant to the location of the buyer?
One example: In some states, some things are more 'criminal' than others - with each having it's own definition of 'suitable' based on locale.

I am not against them per se, I am against them if they are being used as a tool to harass, delay or otherwise encumber lawful buyers and gun owners.

Well, that's the rub! If only law abiding are using proper dealers, the only way to claim success is show how many they've harassed thru those legal dealers. "oh, the shootings are still happening? We need to tighten up the loopholes - we didn't go far enough!"

So, though it sounds like it makes sense, I have to vote no - even only on these couple issues.

 

[10thSFFD]

For carry, purchase, possession, or all of the above?

Just for the sake of conversation. I'm curious what the state of discussion is on this topic. I think BG checks are silly and useless, but I don't think they're going anywhere and in the present climate I can see them being expanded all too easily by politicians seeking electoral cover.

Picton, this country is going to copy Chinese communists who start background checks from the time you get your phone or computer. This is where our idiots want to take us. We will be checked all the time just because we want to follow 2A. Regime will change and just for being on NES you may not pass.....

 

[Asaltweapon]

What about if we went with something like this? Ya know..... just for starters. If it saves one life.....

View attachment 296545

Worked great for the Jews didn’t it.

 

[10thSFFD]

What about if we went with something like this? Ya know..... just for starters. If it saves one life.....

View attachment 296545

All my dogs have chips. Let's be dogs! At least they will find us quicker when time will come to knock.

I am sure MA will lead the nation with MA Upgrade and we will all get electronic bracelets complimenting our current status of felons in waiting. They will come in 3 colors: Pink, yellow and fuchsia.

 

[DitchDigger]

How’s it workin’ so far ?
.Gov distorts everything to their advantage

 

[nstassel]

1. Registry de facto
2. All transfers would have to go through an FFL-only open during business hours, not always one within easily traveled distances
3. Cost
4. Accuracy/errors

 

[citoriguy]

For most of the reasons already stated:

1. Back door to a national registry
2. Another step towards hurting lawful owners
3. Criminals will still be able to get guns
4. The less the government is in my personal life, the better. For all things, not just this. They certainly don’t need an inventory of what guns I own. It’s stupid that MA already knows.