The only way I will accept Universal Background Checks

There is discussion about UBC and apparently there is a camp that says we should give up some and accept the idea in order to get some control over it. My take is as follows: You want UBCs? The Opposition has to give up a lot. And they should as they keep telling us this is the solution to end all gun problems.

So, what do I want in exchange for UBCs? here is my initial list:

  1. Basically goodbye to GCA 68. I’ll leave you with the chance to deny violent felons from owning guns, same for the criminally insane. No more ATF form 4473 or  equivalent or any form of registration plus the rest of the idiocy in it.
  2. Background checks for those with concealed weapons permits are not needed. You walk in, pick your gun, show CWP, pay and leave.
  3. Goodbye NFA 34. The National Firearms Act is as obsolete as the Volstead Act.
  4. National Reciprocity.
  5. Transfer of a gun is defined as the sale or exchange of goods in value of the gun. Not this crap they are trying to pull of loaning a gun requiring a UBC.
  6. Access to NICS by civilians. I don’t need a third-party charging me a nasty fee for doing something that can be done through the internet or with a regular phone.

There are other things that may be included or are better suite to be fixed at the state level, but I am comfy with this exchange.

And let’s stop with the carrots and sticks. I am OK if you are a mule and need that kind of behavioral manipulation, but don’t assume everybody else goes for the same.

18 Replies to “The only way I will accept Universal Background Checks”

  1. They will never go along with your reqs because your reqs make sense and at the end of it all, allow the people more Freedom and Liberty and there will be none of that by the government if they can help it!




    0



    0
  2. I would like to see, along with 50 state reciprocity, is a single set of simple to follow carry rules for all 50 states… OC, CC, car carry, etc.
    Oregon’s are not too difficult to understand, but some state’s laws are like reading a cell phone or credit card contract.

    We should not have to memorize 50 different sets of laws, especially laws designed (intentionally or not) to entrap and severely penalize (sometimes for life) for simple mistakes.




    0



    0
    1. Nope. Too easy to get a Federal law filled with crap we don’t need. I rather it be the long way on each state, slowly but surely the laws get easier. Plus the Opposition do not have the numbers to be fighting in 50 fronts but they do for one federal front.




      0



      0
      1. Plus the 50 states are supposed to be legislative petri dishes. Each watches all the others to see what they pass and if it works.

        Florida passed Shall-Issue CCW. Despite the fear-mongering from the antis, nothing went wrong. Other states followed.
        Delaware kept “Constitutional Carry”. Nothing went wrong. Other states are following.
        Washington passed UBCs on ALL transfers. The fallout and consequences are becoming apparent and well-publicized. Rest assured, the other states are watching.

        There’s no test lab for federal laws, and that makes people somewhat more wary of allowing massive, overreaching restrictions to pass there. (On the other hand, that same fact makes it the Holy Grail venue for “gun control”.)




        0



        0
  3. I take your point, but it comes under the heading of “be careful what you wish for.” Background checks — ANY background check as a precondition to exercising ANY right — is an egregious violation of our Fourth, Fifth, and Tenth Amendment rights, and an a priori restrain on our Second Amendment right. The purpose is to destroy the foundation of the first nation in the history of the planet to be founded upon principles of liberty as set forth in the Bill of Rights. They don’t give a flying Frisbee for criminals getting guns; if they render our Fourth, Fifth, and Tenth Amendment rights irrelevant, then they might as well be null and void, and our right to keep and bear arms is already toast.
    I had a guy today — a GUN STORE OWNER for crying out loud! — tell me he would insist on background checks because “there are just some people out there who should not have guns!” (Funny how close that is to what the gun banners are saying, isn’t it?) Then he told me about a guy who came into his store, asked to see a .45 pistol, then asked about another gun and when the owner turned his back the guy put a round in the chamber and shot himself in the chest. “I want background checks because he shouldn’t have had a gun!”
    And I said, “So how well did the background check stop him?”
    Think about it, folks. No one in the history of the planet has ever been stopped from committing a criminal act by a background check. If they are stopped from buying a gun they’ll just beg, borrow or steal one from somewhere else. And stopping crime is not the purpose. Stopping the Bill of Rights is the purpose. Stopping our liberty is the purpose.
    Don’t be fooled! Don’t offer anything in exchange for our rights, It is time the subversives are held accountable for the Insurrection they are conducting against our Constitution and our liberties.




    0



    0
      1. I watched the vid David posted and I agreed with a lot of it. I will support the idea that a permanent transfer (not, “hey, your tricked out gun looks awesome, can I shoot it sometime”) go through a NICS check if I can do the NICS check myself and not have to pay an FFL.

        That is basically how Illinois works. Anybody who wants to do a transfer can (assuming is is legal for them to have a gun), but they have to call into the State Police to verify the recipient’s FOID (permit to own) is valid. Illinois also doesn’t have registration (Chicago does but not the state), so you don’t need to provide details about the gun – there is no state record of the sale, but the buyer/seller have to keep a record.

        In exchange for that, I want to buy a gun anywhere I want. If I can pass a background check and buy a gun in my home state, I should be able to pass a background check and buy a gun when I’m on vacation in Miami, or I pass a cool looking gun store on a road trip, or anywhere else in the US I happen to be.




        0



        0
  4. J, why in Heaven’s name do you want to give a hostile enemy agent the power to 1) know you have one or more firearms, 2) the power to deprive you of your right to be secure from unwarranted search and seizure without probable cause of your criminal conduct, 3) the power to deprive you of your right to due process, 4) the power to deprive you of your right to own a firearm by simply changing the rules, 5) the power to destroy the rule of law as a fundamental premise of our liberty and return us to the days of kings and princes and government functionaries having life or death control over us?
    In short, J, why are you willing to give up every liberty our nation was founded to preserve and protect just so you can (temporarily) get government’s permission to exercise a fundamental right government has nothing to say about?
    Until the American people adopt the following mindset, the mindset held by our founding fathers, we will not have earned the rights our nation was founded to establish:
    A free citizenry does not ask its governments’ permission to exercise a right. It does not register its exercise of a right. It does not waive any other right, such as the right to privacy, or the right to due process, or the right to be secure from being compelled to waive a right in order to exercise a right, in exchange for permission to exercise a right such as the right to keep and bear arms which government does not have the authority to issue or deny in the first place. It does not permit government to claim the exercise of a right is probable cause, or prima facie evidence, or even a suspicion, of a crime having been committed. It does not discuss, or negotiate, what rights it will or will not exercise with government or with any government functionary. In short, a free citizenry, founded in principles of liberty, does not give up its right to determine what kind of government receives its Consent to Govern. A free citizenry respects, honors, and protects the lawful rights of others, by force of arms if necessary, else liberty cannot be preserved for anyone.
    When are you going to take on the responsibilities of a free citizen, J?




    0



    0
  5. One more thing to consider: There is no need for the make, model, or serial number of the firearm to be recorded. All they need to know is that you are buying the piece and you are legal to do so.




    0



    0
    1. Mmm. If a weapon is found at the scene of a crime, or is located in some manner in the course of an investigation into a shooting, and ballistic evidence confirms that it is the firearm used in the crime, do you think it would be a good idea for the weapon to be traceable? (That being said, I object to officers running the serial number of any firearm found in the possession of a citizen in the absence of probable cause of criminal conduct by the owner. That is a search, and in violation of the Fourth Amendment.)




      0



      0
    2. There simply needs to be a searchable database that includes who can’t buy (VIOLENT felons), then make it illegal to sell to them. You scroll down, and if you don’t see the name/birthdate, all known past/current driver’s license numbers and addresses, go for it. You could download the most current list, search it, and no one would know who’s name you’ve typed in. Also, sales tax (on guns/ammo), EPA regulations on lead (relating to ammo), should be recognized as the unconstitutional infringements that they are. I support serial numbers, however, only so you can report guns that are stolen.




      0



      0
      1. How big a step is it, Rrrabbit, between government prohibiting “violent felons” and government designating anyone who seeks gun ownership as “potentially a violent felon”? Here’s another question: If a person is deemed a violent felon, why is he out running around loose instead of locked up somewhere or dangling from a noose? Without intending any insult, I have to say your suggestion is naïve: Violent felons (and wannabes) will always be able to obtain firearms regardless of government rules, and they will always WANT to obtain firearms as long as they perceive everyone else as being disarmed. Government, especially our Marxist Mafia-infiltrated government, will always play you for a sucker by claiming background checks are necessary when they accomplish nothing except identify YOU as a potential enemy of their planned tyranny. They violate your 4th, 5th, 10th, and 2nd Amendment rights, and in the process they destroy the doctrine of the “rule of law” and restore our government to the doctrine of the “rule of man” — meaning laws are enforced according to the agenda of the enforcer instead of according to Constitutional law. PLEASE STOP GIVING THE MARXIST MAFIA THE POWER TO ENSLAVE US ALL.




        0



        0
  6. Be careful when you begin disarming via mental Health..
    American Psychiatric Asso: Half of Americans are mentally ill..

    and NICS itself is UNconstitutional…yet allowing the public to go through these records!!




    0



    0

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .