What *could* pass?

Rating - 100%
19   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
20,306
Likes
31,756
A Fed check is required in every state if the sale is through a licensed dealer though no?


NICS Services

NICS provides full service to the FFLs in 31 states, five U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. The NICS provides partial service to six states. The remaining 13 states perform their own checks through the NICS.
 
Rating - 100%
19   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
20,306
Likes
31,756
Federal law imposes various duties on federally licensed firearms dealers. Firearms dealers must, among other things:
  • Perform background checks on prospective firearm purchasers.
  • Maintain records of all gun sales.
  • Make those records available to law enforcement for inspection.
  • Report certain multiple sales.
  • Report the theft or loss of a firearm from the licensee’s inventory.17
Federal law imposes none of these requirements on unlicensed sellers, however.
Yeah, through an ffl theres a check. Through a private sale, not required in many states. Cant say for sure if TX is one. I thought the kid bought it through an ffl in which case a check was run
 
Rating - 100%
19   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
20,306
Likes
31,756
I dont believe thats the case

IIRC several states have exceptions for licensed ccw purchasing firearms from ffl

Some states the permit serves as the background check. I believe AZ for one has no permit requirement, but if you choose to get a permit, the nics check is waived. The valid permit is the check
 

amm5061

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jun 20, 2016
Messages
7,669
Likes
6,398
Location
Holliston, MA
Anyway, I don’t understand how UBC would have had any impact on the NY or Texas shootings.

It quite literally would never have stopped any of these shootings. There is exactly one shooting it might have helped prevent, had NICS actually had accurate information: the Charleston church shooting. His arrest record should have made him a PP, but NICS approved him. That said, I don't think it would have prevented it entirely. That POS wanted to kill black people, so he was gonna do it no matter what. If he was denied the purchase, I could easily see him having gone the Timothy McVeigh route.

Mag bans also wouldn't have prevented Parkland, since that a**h*** used 10 rounders. That just shows that a 30 round limit is not going to make a difference; a shooter will just bring more 10 rounders.

Assault weapon bans would not have prevented Columbine, and the only effect it would have had on any of the rest is to change the weapon that was used.
 

GM-GUY

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
12,294
Likes
11,355
Location
North Central Mass
An AWB wouldn’t have mattered in Texas either - the cops sat on their hands for ONE HOUR AND TWENTY MINUTES. Enough time to drive from Gardner to Boston. They did NOTHING. When the border patrol finally went in (against orders) it was over in 30 seconds.

The cops aren’t cowards - they ‘followed orders’ - which is why we need to strengthen 2A.
 
Rating - 100%
14   0   0
Joined
Aug 27, 2007
Messages
14,903
Likes
10,004
Location
Texas
Yeah, through an ffl theres a check. Through a private sale, not required in many states. Cant say for sure if TX is one. I thought the kid bought it through an ffl in which case a check was run
No background check for private sales in TX. He bought his guns through an FFL is my understanding but not certain. And since he had just turned 18, nothing on his record, if he had a juvenile record, would have likely stopped a sale.
 

VetteGirlMA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
6,830
Likes
15,181
Location
western mass
Agreed. We already have plenty.

Not that that'll stop TPTB.
The people on the left backed HIPPA laws decades ago in order to protect medical privacy and here we are today and they want to give that data for free to the state. The government has been drooling over (a) getting their hands on that information and (b) finding a way to use it against their political rivals using the cover of law.

If they can stop a person who has a mental health issue, then they can use it for something similar:

"Hey look this guy Joe has been to the same dentist 10 times and is leaving bad reviews online, better yank his LTC"

"Josephine applied for an LTC and she's had an abortion. We better not give her an LTC"

There is not one single bit of this digital data that isn't going to be use for nefarious purposes. Imagine running for office and the incumbent uses this power to research their political opponent in order to weaponize it? "Don't vote for Joe Shmoe he's had a heart attack and isn't fit for office"
 
Rating - 100%
14   0   0
Joined
Aug 27, 2007
Messages
14,903
Likes
10,004
Location
Texas
I dont believe thats the case

IIRC several states have exceptions for licensed ccw purchasing firearms from ffl

if you have an LTC in TX, no BC when purchasing a firearm through FFL. BUT the guy didn't have an LTC as far as I know and no LTC is required to buy or carry a rifle in TX. And since he just turned 18, I doubt he had an LTC.
 

MaverickNH

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
5,499
Likes
4,084
Location
SoNH

Williamson repeats the evidence that UBCs and other gun laws do not substantially impact criminals, as they obtain their guns from other than sources evading NICS (theft, straw-buys, F2F between prohibited persons, etc.)

That point takes on the gun control advocates claim they we share the common goal of keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals and the mentally ill. But the endgame of the gun control advocates is that only LEOs, military, private security and a few elite be allowed to possess and use guns and ammunition.

Have you ever been eyeballed by a group of thugs, knowing that if you let them follow you without ducking into a public place with lots of people, they will steal everything you’ve got and stomp you for being your sociodemographic group (old, white, conservative, middle-class male, in my case)? That’s gun control advocates.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Sep 3, 2021
Messages
1,304
Likes
2,234
Wouldn't FFLs love universal background checks? Some of the MA dealers that want $50 as a transfer fee are gonna make a killing once private efa10 FTFs are no longer a thing.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
82,878
Likes
70,718
Wouldn't FFLs love universal background checks? Some of the MA dealers that want $50 as a transfer fee are gonna make a killing once private efa10 FTFs are no longer a thing.

Nobody with a brain in the industry wants this, it puts dealers in a bad (strike that, horrendously bad) position. Nobody wants customers who were "forced" to come to you by state fiat. Not to mention shops that don't want to do transfers are going to have a lot of people "bouncing off their door" etc.
 

StevieP

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 16, 2009
Messages
9,216
Likes
5,642
Location
Gone to Carolina in my mind...
Well in MA, if each party had to get background checked to get the LTC, I would think the eFA10 system (with license verification) is already in compliance with "Universal Background Checks."

The challenge for them is how to enforce UBCs in "free states" where there's Constitutional Carry and no license per se'.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
82,878
Likes
70,718
Well in MA, if each party had to get background checked to get the LTC, I would think the eFA10 system (with license verification) is already in compliance with "Universal Background Checks."

An MA LTC is not a "hot", true, BG check. At least not for the purposes of any presumed federal law.
 
Top Bottom