• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

‘Universal Background Checks’ – Absolutely Not

ccwinstructor

Centurion
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
919
Location
Yuma, Arizona, USA
Florida - -(Ammoland.com)- Imagine a grandfather who wants to give a family shotgun to his 12-year-old grandson having to do a background check on his grandson before giving him the shotgun.

Or a friend having to do a background check on his lifetime best buddy before lending him a hunting rifle.

Or, if your mother had a prowler at her home, having to do a background check on your own Mom before you could give her one of your guns for protection.

That’s what “universal background checks” do. They turn traditional innocent conduct into a criminal offense. They target you, law-abiding gun owners.

Universal background checks are background checks on EVERY transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, and loan of a firearm between any and all individuals.

All background checks must be conducted through a federally licensed dealer. (costing hard earned cash) Universal background checks have nothing to do with gun shows – they are about you.

It is ALREADY a federal felony to be engaged in the business of buying and selling firearms and ammunition without having federal firearm dealers license.
It is ALREADY a crime for a federally licensed dealer to sell a gun without doing a background check – that’s all dealers, everywhere, including at retail stores, gun shows, flea markets or anywhere else.
Further, it is ALREADY a federal felony for any private person to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person you know or should have known is not legally allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm.

The penalty for selling a gun to a person who is a criminal, mentally ill, mentally incompetent, alcohol abuser or drug abuser is 10-year federal felony. That’s now, today, with no changes to the law.

It is even a federal felony to submit false information on a background check form for the purpose of purchasing a firearm.

Even so, according to a 2012 report to the Department of Justice, more than 72,000 people were turned down on a gun purchase in 2010 because they didn’t pass the background check. Yet, only 44 of those cases were prosecuted.

Why, when criminals are caught in act of lying on the form to illegally purchase a firearm are they not prosecuted?

On Thursday, January 10, 2013, in the White House meeting of President Obama’s Gun Agenda Task Force, Vice President Joe Biden answered that question, telling NRA’s Director of Federal Affairs, James Baker, that the Obama administration didn’t have time to prosecute people for lying on the federal background check form.

In an article in The Daily Caller (1/18/2013) Biden said, “And to your point,
Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.”

If the Obama Administration currently doesn’t have the time or manpower to prosecute those who lie on background check forms, then why do they want more background checks, more paperwork and more forms? It’s backdoor gun registration.

Universal background check system legislation that we have previously seen, allows the government to keep a computerized government registry of gun owners.

In addition to the absurdity of having to do background checks on people you know are not criminals, would you like to pay up to $100 or more just to give your grandson a shotgun or lend a hunting rifle to your best friend or give your Mom a gun for protection?

Transfer fees alone could run from $50 up. Firearms dealers, like other businesses, charge as much as they can get away with. Background check fees for a federally mandated program can be any amount they decide.

The Obama administration’s gun ban agenda and universal background check system are unconstitutional regulatory schemes to gut the Second Amendment. These proposals which mandate the government collection of data on lawful gun buyers and sellers amount to universal gun registration and gun owner licensing.

This agenda focuses on peaceable citizens, not violent criminals who obtain guns on the black-market to carry out unspeakable crimes already prohibited under federal and state laws. Instead of stopping crime and eliminating criminal conduct, they are creating more criminals – they are targeting you.

That’s why NRA Members and the nation’s 100 million firearms owners will stand in solidarity and fight against these misguided and diabolical proposals that have nothing whatsoever to do with curbing criminal violence but everything to do with stripping us of our guaranteed civil rights and our freedom.

Marion P. Hammer is past President of the National Rifle Association and is Executive Director of Unified Sportsmen of Florida

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/01/universal-background-checks-absolutely-not/#axzz2IomN3hMM
 
Last edited:

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
They are unconstitutional anyways

The ones they way they are being, (mis)applied go against the constitutional principle of being innocent until proven guilty.

Then you have the whole idea that once you've been convicted of a felony, the much easier to convict 'domestic violence,' and/or have the least non-crime of having a restraining order awarded against you, or in the process of fighting any CHARGE of felony and/or domestic violence you can't own firearms.

If a person is so dangerous that the government and it's bootlickers says that they should not own firearms then why did they let them out of jail?

Once a person is out of jail the punishment should be over. They should be able to own guns again and if they commit a crime with them, I would hope that, an armed citizen will stop the need of the state from ever having to house and feed them ever again.

Domestic violence has such a low bar for proving of guilt that it's sickening that it's used to disarm someone ever.

Back in the 'old days' once you did your time you were given your guns back and told to not screw up like that again. At least one state would issue you a double barrel shotgun and (I think it was) a mule upon release. It was a way of recognizing your right to defend yourself and your right to travel and to symbolize that you were now a freeman once again.

The current background checks are an infringement on my right to keep and bear arms.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
The ones they way they are being, (mis)applied go against the constitutional principle of being innocent until proven guilty.

Then you have the whole idea that once you've been convicted of a felony, the much easier to convict 'domestic violence,' and/or have the least non-crime of having a restraining order awarded against you, or in the process of fighting any CHARGE of felony and/or domestic violence you can't own firearms.

If a person is so dangerous that the government and it's bootlickers says that they should not own firearms then why did they let them out of jail?

Once a person is out of jail the punishment should be over. They should be able to own guns again and if they commit a crime with them, I would hope that, an armed citizen will stop the need of the state from ever having to house and feed them ever again.

Domestic violence has such a low bar for proving of guilt that it's sickening that it's used to disarm someone ever.

Back in the 'old days' once you did your time you were given your guns back and told to not screw up like that again. At least one state would issue you a double barrel shotgun and (I think it was) a mule upon release. It was a way of recognizing your right to defend yourself and your right to travel and to symbolize that you were now a freeman once again.

The current background checks are an infringement on my right to keep and bear arms.

No argument from me, I agree completely. Besides it does not work anymore than drug laws do.
 

Corlando465

New member
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
3
Location
Kentucky
And again, our Government wants to make more laws, but not enforce the current laws they already have.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 

Jakeus314

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
81
Location
Michigan
Completely agree. That original post will be reposted by me for sure.

I suggest that we redefine cruel and unusual in 8A. The punishment of prison and/or death is bad, but obviously not bad enough to deter extreme degenerates from acting. The unusual is only unusual because it is happens less often. Prison is cruel if you ask me... So let's kick it up a notch and give these animals something real to fear.

Eye for an eye isn't enough for some criminals.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
Completely agree. That original post will be reposted by me for sure.

I suggest that we redefine cruel and unusual in 8A. The punishment of prison and/or death is bad, but obviously not bad enough to deter extreme degenerates from acting. The unusual is only unusual because it is happens less often. Prison is cruel if you ask me... So let's kick it up a notch and give these animals something real to fear.

Eye for an eye isn't enough for some criminals.

So when are you going into arrest most of the members of the house and the senate?

Before you argue for treating people in prison as animals you should really argue for the punishment of the real criminals.
Seeing as how our prosecutors only want to put people in prison and most care nothing for honest justice your comment is sickening. Why not work on treating them like humans and work on getting the innocent ones out of prison? Let's arm all the citizens because that will create a social punishment that is much more effective than a behind bars punishment in most cases.

A rapist might be treated okay in prison but in society, he could be made fun of. What, you're so bad at sex you have to force women to have it with you?
 

Jakeus314

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
81
Location
Michigan
So when are you going into arrest most of the members of the house and the senate?

Before you argue for treating people in prison as animals you should really argue for the punishment of the real criminals.
Seeing as how our prosecutors only want to put people in prison and most care nothing for honest justice your comment is sickening. Why not work on treating them like humans and work on getting the innocent ones out of prison? Let's arm all the citizens because that will create a social punishment that is much more effective than a behind bars punishment in most cases.

A rapist might be treated okay in prison but in society, he could be made fun of. What, you're so bad at sex you have to force women to have it with you?

I'm referring to punishing evil people more... That's it.
 

Jakeus314

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
81
Location
Michigan
My original question still stands then.

A wrongful conviction is a nightmare for many people. I can't explain why they happen and I would never suggest that I know how to fix a problem like that. I just think prison or death isn't a significant crime deterrent for horrible people.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
A wrongful conviction is a nightmare for many people. I can't explain why they happen and I would never suggest that I know how to fix a problem like that. I just think prison or death isn't a significant crime deterrent for horrible people.

Still dodging Or was there a failure to communicate?

I will believe it was the later of the two.

So, when are you going to start arresting and punishing congress critters?
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
...I just think prison or death isn't a significant crime deterrent for horrible people.

No doubt, the possibility does not even cross the minds of some, but the deterrent effect is there for many.

Most people mature into a good sense of right and wrong. They don't need laws and prison to motivate them to do the right thing. Some people only mature to the point where they can make rational decisions as to what is best for them. These are the people we try to keep on the straight and narrow through the use of laws and prison. Some people never develop any kind of moral sense, nor any kind of common sense. Yes, prisons and laws have zero effect on these folks. So we should give up the benefit from laws and prison realized among the second group because of the third??? I don't think so.

On edit: Oh, and deterrence is just one of the uses of prison. The main use? It separates the violent garbage from the rest of us. At least for a while.
 
Last edited:

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
"Background check" is a misnomer. "Transaction check" is more descriptive.

Try doing a "background check" on a PERSON, not a firearm. Ain't happenin'. What should it matter what particular firearm a buyer is attempting to purchase?

IF AND ONLY IF it ever becomes background, and not firearm, I'll reconsider my position and may or may not support the idea based on facts, not on what some politician wants me to believe.
 

beebobby

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
847
Location
, ,
I would still like one of our legislators here in MO to propose a change in the background check rules that would allow CCW holders to skip the NICS check. Every other time I puchase a firearm, I get held up for a couple of days. Not consistent at all and that begs the question whether it's an effective check or not. I believe that Michigan has a provision like that.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I would still like one of our legislators here in MO to propose a change in the background check rules that would allow CCW holders to skip the NICS check. Every other time I puchase a firearm, I get held up for a couple of days. Not consistent at all and that begs the question whether it's an effective check or not. I believe that Michigan has a provision like that.

I would prefer the check be taken off the books, it is a huge waste of money that the government does not have. A needless hoop that does nothing to prevent crime.
 

Jakeus314

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
81
Location
Michigan
I would prefer the check be taken off the books, it is a huge waste of money that the government does not have. A needless hoop that does nothing to prevent crime.

So, I'd say the same thing but people claim we are just looking for excuses to avoid background checks to hide our past or some crap. Bottom line it won't prevent crime so it's a waste. They feel just the opposite, so again logic and reason fails them.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
So, I'd say the same thing but people claim we are just looking for excuses to avoid background checks to hide our past or some crap. Bottom line it won't prevent crime so it's a waste. They feel just the opposite, so again logic and reason fails them.

IMO nobody should be labeled for their past, unless they are serving their due process. If we really really expect people to pay forever for the sins committed, then most politicians could not be in office. I have real problems with the fact that felons after changing their lives must live with a F tattooed on their forehead, yet other felons can hold office. Why should it be any different for a person convicted of using cocaine, paid their time, changed their life, and the present president who admitted to it's use in a book, and never served a day for his crime. The whole idea is backasswards.

Our current system encourages ex cons to be criminals. It rewards those that did not get caught. If indeed a person is dangerous leave them in prison.
 
Top