What are your reason(s) against background checks?

[TheGreekFreak]

Yes, I saw you mentioned the rest of the free world, but I'm still sticking it to you.

As you should. I also forgot to mention the issue of LTC not being shall issue in some parts of the country or taking forever to be issued even after approval, both of which can become preventative obstacles under such a system nationwide.

My point was more what may seem reasonable to us in MA as a pain free compromise still has its problems....so I'm not really for it.

 

[308rifleman]

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

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.

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

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.

Mexico allows a single handgun for home defense. Your choice of .380 ACP or smaller in a pistol or .38 Special or smaller in a revolver. After you get all of the paperwork, you go to a military base in Mexico City and make the purchase. You can purchase two boxes of ammo for the gun and the receipt gives you 48 hours to get it back to your home. At that point, it cannot leave your home for any reason whatsoever. No range training or target practice.

 

[drgrant]

Who here would trade UBC for National carry reciprocity?

Never, would be a fake win. Nat rep is worthless, the half dozen or so states you need it in would still be shit eating douchebags about the issue... unless it was a felony for them to violate your rights under it...

 

[jct61765]

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.

F that.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

a shrewd negotiator might set up something like that.

It was done once. Pre-Brady (when we had that to trade) our side in the state of WA negotiated a deal - a background check for dealer sales in return for changing may issue to shall issue and exempting carry permit holders from the check (except upon application for the carry permit).

The other side introduced a bill to repeal shall issue immediately after the deal was made law, but that fortunately died a quick death.

 

[babygorilla]

My own opinion is that if the GOP passed any gun control it will be political suicide for 2020

Yep, I for one would vote for "watch the world burn".

 

[not new guy]

Canada did away with their long gun registry several years ago. Colossal waste of time and taxpayers' $$$ were the reasons for scrapping it.

Funny. I remember the days when our government at least pretended to care about such things.

 

[Ultrarunner]

In addition to all of the well articulated arguments, I'll add: Because not paying a parking ticket, getting a permission slip to fish, or posting unsavory comments about the government can and will be tools to deny firearm purchases.

 

[Supermoto]

Background checks should be this simple. Is your background a concrete bed, steel toilet and a tiny window? Then no gun for you

 

[allen-1]

Universal background checks means getting permission to lend a buddy a firearm. Even when I know he's got a valid carry permit. Universal background checks potentially make it illegal for me to hand a firearm to a friend's kid that I'm teaching to shoot. Because I'm "transferring" the firearm to them. UBC means that the government keeps a list of the firearms that I own - no thanks.

 

[wahsben]

The mentality is kinda hard to break when you've been taught that this Right is a Privilege.

True for those in states like MA. but it needs to be broken otherwise we're screwed even more than we already are.

 

[hv55maxx]

a BACKground check only looks one direction (its not forward). it is not a predictive tool as most commies would have you believe.

UBC rules over private property, which the .gov has no business getting involved in.

 

[wahsben]

The Dark Side of the Universal Background Check Bill HR8

 

[wahsben]

Who here would trade UBC for National carry reciprocity?

Government doesn't recognize or respect our rights now. They're not to be trusted.

 

[Spanz]

Who here would trade UBC for National carry reciprocity?

Would it be codified in a constitutional amendment, clarifying 2a???

Or would it just be another law that the next democrat president could write an executive order to ignore?

 

[wahsben]

I actually don't have a problem with the concept of checking that someone isn't a felon

Martha Stewart is a felon should she be denied the RKBA? Also government likes to turn people into felons: https://www.amazon.com/Three-Feloni...=gateway&sprefix=three+felloni,aps,262&sr=8-1

 

[SFC13557]

There is already a background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System; the problem is that the database is not accurate. What kind of additional background check is needed?

********
Correct, we already have background checks and all the Ma. shooters passed it when purchasing their rifles..

 

[JJ4]

If you’re out on the street, you should be able to buy a gun. Period.

If you’re in jail, or a psychiatric facility, you cannot have one until you get out.

What’s so difficult about this?

Quite a bit, actually. I lived in condo where the neighboring unit was owned by a social services agency. The agency placed people with moderate cognitive disabilities in the units. They would come check on them once a day and bring them food. One of the people placed there would have a tantrum every couple of weeks two times he would start throwing stuff out of his unit into the hallway. We had to call the police to come assist twice over a three year period, but otherwise he wasn't a problem. This person did not need to be institutionalized, but he clearly does not have the mental capacities to own firearms.

 

[wahsben]

But the RINOs we have in congress

It's my opinion that the RINO's we have in congress are on the same team as the dems and support gun control. They even introduce gun control bills themselves. They've had control of the senate and house plus the White house before and yet they're always coming out in support of gun control instead of pointing out that gun control in most of these instances enabled mass murder to occur. They're not on our side.

 

[Kevin_NH]

Who here would trade UBC for National carry reciprocity?

Only if both were handled by adding an endorsement to your state ID, basically a "Good Guy" flag on your driver's license indicating that you are legal to purchase and to carry. Add an online system to confirm the mark of the beast is still valid.

But that'll never happen, the "Ban the box" crowd will see it as a means for employers to weed out felons and other PP.

 

[Rockrivr1]

Mitch Micconnell caved...... UBC seem to be a thing in the very near future.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Thursday that he was willing to consider expanding background checks for gun buyers as a caravan of protesters led by U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan descended in Louisville to press him on gun control.

“What we can’t do is fail to pass something,” McConnell told WHAS radio host Terry Meiners late Thursday afternoon. “The urgency of this is not lost on any of us.”

McConnell's statement showed he might be pivoting away from holding up gun control legislation that had passed the U.S. House, although he didn't mention two gun measures that passed that chamber in February.

Mitch McConnell: Background checks will be 'front and center' in Congress gun debate

 

[wahsben]

I had said this under another thread but I'll put it here too. It was about what Trump should have said but it also goes for any politician no matter the party affiliation that if they truly support the 2A they shouldn't be supporting gun control at all.

What Trump (and anyone that claims to support the 2A) should say when these events happen is this: I'm not going to blame or hold accountable the tens of millions of gun owners that safely and responsibly use guns every day for the acts of a terrorist or madman. These types of guns have been around for over a century but these events have only been occurring for about the past 30yrs. It's time to stop blaming the gun and place the blame where it belongs on the perpetrator. We need to look at what has changed in our society that is leading these people to commit these acts. We need to get rid of gun free zones which only make these acts easier to carry out and we need to allow people to protect and defend themselves.

I added the part in parenthesis.

 

[enbloc]

Pasted from another thread and may be pertinent here:

Here's My Question...

Why do we need another Assault Weapons Ban if we are going to also get stricter Background Checks?

After passing a "stricter" Background Check, an individual should have less restrictions... not more.

Pass the Background check: Be allowed hi-cap magazines in every state...
Pass the Background check: Be allowed access to all firearm platforms in every state...
Pass the Background check: Be allowed access to fully-automatic weapons in every state...
Pass the Background check: Be allowed suppressors in every state...
Pass the Background check: Be allowed folding stocks in every state...
Pass the Background check: Be allowed Imported Firearms in every state...
Pass the Background check: Be allowed unlimited access to bulk ammunition in every state...
Pass the Background check: Be allowed CCW and Unrestricted travel in every state...

~Enbloc

 

[Jason m]

Because no good ever came from the Government making list of the population. I'm not a number on a list.

 

[Whutmeworry]

1. People are bad. Our government is made up of bad, untrustworthy people who seek power and control over us. Empowering them to disarm us via background checks or any other means will end badly.
2. Firearms are used exponentially more often to save/protect people every year than they are to kill or injure them. Thus, background checks serve as nothing more than a barrier to saving lives.
3. Background checks serve as an excuse not to incarcerate violent people who have no business being out in free society in the first place.

 

[PatMcD]

Pat, can you also sell to non residents or do you need proof of maine residents?

I believe it is Federal law that person-to-person firearm transfers can only be done between two people who reside in the same state.

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.

There is no town in the state of Maine that requires anybody with firearms to report to the police. There are a few towns/cities that have firearm discharge ordinances because of high-density housing/populations.

 

[rommel]

I get background check
every 5 years for ltc
Every 5 years for hazmat endorsement on cdl
Every 3-5 years for twic card
Most gun purchases
To volunteer for a school function for my kids
When I got UPIN because of false delays.
.gov has to have about 50 sets of my fingerprints.

For 1, I do not see how that prevents me from commiting an atrocity.
For 2, If I knew I would not pass a background check, then I would avoid it by buying a gun ilegally.
For 3, what happens when, not if, someome passes a background check and then something bad happens? History has taught me that they will demand even more .gov involvement that will ultimately still not prevent tragedies. Therefore it is all a waste of taxes, that gives a government more power, takes away power from the people, will be used as a stepping stone for further government power and will accomplish zero by way of anyone being safer.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

a shrewd negotiator might set up something like that. But the RINOs we have in congress????

RINOs do not want national reciprocity or mandated shall issue since it will give the Ds something to use against them.

They do want to be seen as for it, but not let it pass. I would not be surprised if there were negotiations in which vulnerable RINOs were "allowed" to vote for it since enough of the safe ones agreed not to.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

RINOs do not want national reciprocity or mandated shall issue since it will give the Ds something to use against them.

They do want to be seen as for it, but not let it pass. I would not be surprised if there were negotiations in which vulnerable RINOs were "allowed" to vote for it since enough of the safe ones agreed not to.

So essentially we no longer have a government of the people. The politicians pick off the low hanging fruit and deal with that and everything, everyone else is lip service. Sounds great. Where do I sign up?

 

[namedpipes]

... There is no town in the state of Maine that requires anybody with firearms to report to the police. There are a few towns/cities that have firearm discharge ordinances because of high-density housing/populations.

Not *quite* what I said.

I believe that when you interact with police in Maine (as in, stopped for speeding / whatever) and if you are carrying as a non-resident, then you must notify the officer that you are carrying. A quick search of this site will find numerous such references. **

That's part one and not related in any way to the second thing I said.

The second thing was simply a true statement that I saw a sign along the coastal route, entering some town or another that stated if you have a gun go to the police station. Or words quite similar to that.

** ETA: Ah, not non residents but those lacking a Maine CCW license.