-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
What are your reason(s) against background checks?
- Thread starter Rockrivr1
- Start date
For all reasons. Once you get it, you are cleared to purchase , carry etc. no multiple Licenses for other states, makes it easier. The UBC is coming and I’d rather mold it then have it designed by a anti 2A person.
TheGreekFreak
NES Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2015
- Messages
- 2,468
- Likes
- 3,431
A compromise where you would have a federal eFA-10 type system that doesn't require an ffl transfer + actual background check but is based on whether you have a valid LTC or not sounds reasonable. The active status of the LTC would essentially serve as the background check.
Sounds reasonable....until you factor in the registration part. I think that's the sticking point that alot of gun control people that would even be willing to come to that compromise can't wrap their heads around. Being in MA, its easy to feel that a some registration process is a no brainer thing already in place....but some other parts of the country are actually free.
It's tricky because you can't make the argument of "we should focus on mentally ill people and criminals not getting guns" while simultaneously arguing "there should be no checks whatsoever on gun purchases". To remain consistent, you kinda have to go either full blown unregulated no paper trail or accept some form of regulation/proof of transfer record, right?
I keep an open mind but will always lean towards the option of more freedom. Can any gun control advocate assure me their proposal will be the last "reasonable regulation" ever or just another chink in the armor? The latter seems more likely....so while I like the idea of some instant background check any seller can perform on their phone, I don't like the possibility of some national registry.
Sounds reasonable....until you factor in the registration part. I think that's the sticking point that alot of gun control people that would even be willing to come to that compromise can't wrap their heads around. Being in MA, its easy to feel that a some registration process is a no brainer thing already in place....but some other parts of the country are actually free.
It's tricky because you can't make the argument of "we should focus on mentally ill people and criminals not getting guns" while simultaneously arguing "there should be no checks whatsoever on gun purchases". To remain consistent, you kinda have to go either full blown unregulated no paper trail or accept some form of regulation/proof of transfer record, right?
I keep an open mind but will always lean towards the option of more freedom. Can any gun control advocate assure me their proposal will be the last "reasonable regulation" ever or just another chink in the armor? The latter seems more likely....so while I like the idea of some instant background check any seller can perform on their phone, I don't like the possibility of some national registry.
Sounds like the existing Permanent Brady LTC exception, with the added complication that in states/cities where it's all but impossible to get an LTC (Hawaii, New York City, Los Angeles, etc), you've just eliminated the second amendment.
The main reasons are all the baggage and legitimate slippery slope issues that tend to come around with it.
- De-facto registration of guns (a government list)
- De-facto registration of people who have guns (another government list)
- Systems that don't work: improperly deny or delay people who should have no problems
- Background checks don't do much as-is or as-proposed, so with the baggage above I'm against them
That said, and I'm sure this isn't popular here - I actually don't have a problem with the concept of checking that someone isn't a felon, a fugitive from law, or has a proper and fair adjudication of mental incompetence. The issue for me is that there's no great way to implement this that respects privacy and keeps you off of lists. The silly thing is that there's no optional/private way to do a NICS check on yourself to prove to a would-be private seller that you're clear...
On the other hand, I do have TSA Pre-check and Global Entry because being on those lists is worth it to me...
- De-facto registration of guns (a government list)
- De-facto registration of people who have guns (another government list)
- Systems that don't work: improperly deny or delay people who should have no problems
- Background checks don't do much as-is or as-proposed, so with the baggage above I'm against them
That said, and I'm sure this isn't popular here - I actually don't have a problem with the concept of checking that someone isn't a felon, a fugitive from law, or has a proper and fair adjudication of mental incompetence. The issue for me is that there's no great way to implement this that respects privacy and keeps you off of lists. The silly thing is that there's no optional/private way to do a NICS check on yourself to prove to a would-be private seller that you're clear...
On the other hand, I do have TSA Pre-check and Global Entry because being on those lists is worth it to me...
GJH86
NES Member
When the gang-bangers and other criminals start doing their 4473s when selling and transferring all their stolen or straw purchased goods...then maybe I’ll listen. Most likely not...everything the .gov touches turns to $h!%. Maybe the .gov should mandate that dope slingers do gov mandated purity checks before selling heroin, you know, cuz overdoses. The whole premise is feel-good knee-jerk silliness that does nothing for safety. Remember; Columbine happened during the assault weapons ban.....
KBCraig
NES Member
We don't "improve" bad bills, we kill them. We don't follow bad laws, we break them.
You should look to Canada's mass defiance of the law, which led to them scrapping their long gun registration.
KBCraig
NES Member
NICS is only for transfers through dealers. UBC is about every transfer, including between family members and friends.
The only way to know which guns were transferred with a BC, is to know exactly who owns each and every gun. It requires full registration, and the only reason for registration, is confiscation.
Pat, can you also sell to non residents or do you need proof of maine residents?
KBCraig
NES Member
ATF Form 4473, which has nothing to do with private transfers. The UBC is about non-dealer transfers, including loaning a gun to someone for a hunting trip.
KBCraig
NES Member
18 USC 922 has all the (very long) details. Short version: it is unlawful to knowingly transfer a firearm to a non-resident. There is no obligation to confirm residency, but if someone shows up with NY plates looking and talking like Vinny Goombatz, it would be wise to insist on an in-state valid ID before selling to them.
MisterHappy
NES Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,449
- Likes
- 17,650
I have no reason to be against them, other than it presumes that you are guilty, before the fact.
Of course, that lets "If you're innocent, you have nothing to fear," get trotted out, so it's all good.
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
Of course, that lets "If you're innocent, you have nothing to fear," get trotted out, so it's all good.
A compromise is both sides getting something they want. So, I'd be ok with this if it comes with conceal carry reciprocity and drastically reducing gun free zones. Something like an area can only be a GFZ if it has some minimum number of armed guards based on size, typical occupancy, etc. Lastly, I like the national shall issue part of this. Make this supersede all state and local regs, and then the people of MA, CA, NJ, etc can have their rights restored.
I'm sure Maura and the other enemies of the COTUS love to see gun owners willing to accept their subjugation just about every-time if not every-time something happens. With estimates around 80 million or so gun owners we should not be willing to accept anything. We should be telling them where to go but here we are discussing what we're willing to accept. Sad
We all know that's not how "Compromise" is defined in the hoplophobic dictionary.
In their mind, a good compromise is we get none of what we want, they take half of what they want to take... for now.
citoriguy
NES Member
Both sides have to get “unstuck” from their respective positions for there to be a fruitful dialogue. I don’t see that happening any time soon. If anything, it will get worse before it gets better.
namedpipes
NES Member
Nearly true. As a non resident, I can carry on 2A but I must inform po-po I'm armed if they stop me.
Also, there's some town along the coast that has a sign saying something along the lines of "if you gots guns report to the police dept" or some such. Don't recall the town or exact signage or if it even has teeth.
Don't you have something productive to do? I vote for a complete ignorance!
my reason is simple: fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me!
It is pretty damned clear the leftist loonies will not stop until ALL of our guns are confiscated. So, why let them take the first step to that end goal???
It is pretty damned clear the leftist loonies will not stop until ALL of our guns are confiscated. So, why let them take the first step to that end goal???
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,555
- Likes
- 33,621
Easy - they are always offered with nothing in return. Our side should never cede territory without something in return - like national reciprocity, or mandatory "Shall issue" in every state (and withhold all highway funds from any state that does not comply).
We must never accept that "compromise" is giving up less than the govt wants to take, and define it as BOTH sides giving up something they did not want to.
We must never accept that "compromise" is giving up less than the govt wants to take, and define it as BOTH sides giving up something they did not want to.
a shrewd negotiator might set up something like that. But the RINOs we have in congress???? They would get rolled in the back alley even trying it. I simply have no faith in them.
And with LaPierre screwing up the NRA royally...we do not have that lobbying arm to fall back on either!
namedpipes
NES Member
Literally. "Shall not be infringed"
Not on a bet.
We already have national reciprocity, its called the 2A. Every state agreed to abide by the constitution and bill of rights when they signed on to become a state. It is the "law of the land".
Thanks a lot, the rest of us don't live in your misery of having to ask for permission.
But I agree it is going to come to us. Might as well use some lube.
My biggest thing against it, beyond what others have said, is the cost. If you are poor, adding an additional $25-XX cost to the purchase could put it out of reach. Unless the same bill says FFL's can't charge a transfer fee, which would be dumb on a number of other levels.
How many FFL's would suddenly charge $50-XXX since you are now essentially captive to the market.
Yes, I saw you mentioned the rest of the free world, but I'm still sticking it to you.
Similar threads
