casper
Guest
What is the universal background check, and how does it differ from what we have now ?
-
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.
-
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 back groud check ?
- Thread starter casper
- Start date
Most states allow private party transfers without it.
This would eliminate that, and would force private parties into expensive and delaying background checks, while the crooks would continue the black market with impunity, as now.
Because banning drugs has worked out so well...
This would eliminate that, and would force private parties into expensive and delaying background checks, while the crooks would continue the black market with impunity, as now.
Because banning drugs has worked out so well...
Last edited:
DanM
Regular Member
What is incorrectly called "universal" background check is actually just expansion of the background check requirement that dealers must do to making it a requirement for you to do. Because the authorities have been SO EFFECTIVE at prosecuting those who have been caught in the current system (should that be in purple, or does everyone have fresh batteries in their sarcasm detectors?).
Actually, it's not universal background check. Because the bad guys are practically never going to go through it. They're just going to keep stealing them or having their straw purchasers get the guns for them. Because the authorities have been SO EFFECTIVE at prosecuting the straw purchasers as well.
TheQ
Regular Member
It's also "universal gun owner registration", since the government would have a record of every lawful firearm transaction via their background check system.
Universal background checks
Creates a gun registry AND a gun owner registry = who to see, where to go to confiscate what guns.
Remember it is not paranoia when they really really are......< fill in the blank >
Creates a gun registry AND a gun owner registry = who to see, where to go to confiscate what guns.
Remember it is not paranoia when they really really are......< fill in the blank >
RedRuger
Regular Member
Universal Back Ground Check
The way federal law stands now a private person can transfer (give or sell) a gun to another person without a background (NICS) check. A few states do not allow this.
The way I read the proposed laws is that all transfers between persons would require a NICS check. The results would be:
Additional cost for the NICS check.
Additional costly bureaucracy to administer the checks.
The way federal law stands now persons between 18-20 can own a handgun; however they must be at least 21 to purchase a handgun. The proposed laws would prohibit the transfer of a handgun to anyone between 18-20. This would disenfranchise a whole class of people.
If a firearm owner dies; then he would no longer own the firearms and they would not be transferable to his spouse or children.
The proposed law does not prohibit the government from creating a firearms registry from the NICS checks. A firearms registry lets the government know who owns firearms and where they are. Registration eventually leads to confiscation. Examples (California, New York, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. Cambodia, and Germany)
The way federal law stands now a private person can transfer (give or sell) a gun to another person without a background (NICS) check. A few states do not allow this.
The way I read the proposed laws is that all transfers between persons would require a NICS check. The results would be:
Additional cost for the NICS check.
Additional costly bureaucracy to administer the checks.
The way federal law stands now persons between 18-20 can own a handgun; however they must be at least 21 to purchase a handgun. The proposed laws would prohibit the transfer of a handgun to anyone between 18-20. This would disenfranchise a whole class of people.
If a firearm owner dies; then he would no longer own the firearms and they would not be transferable to his spouse or children.
The proposed law does not prohibit the government from creating a firearms registry from the NICS checks. A firearms registry lets the government know who owns firearms and where they are. Registration eventually leads to confiscation. Examples (California, New York, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. Cambodia, and Germany)
DanM
Regular Member
That is a consequence of it, and it's the worst thing about it. And here's a history lesson (for readers in general): repressive states or genocides, since the spread of gunpowder and firearms, have always been preceded by gun registration, then gun confiscation. Not all countries with registration have proceeded to confiscation. Not all countries having done confiscation have descended to repression or genocide. But every state or society that has descended to repression or genocide did registration and confiscation first.
Last edited:
Michigander
Regular Member
There is a difference though, because it's not like law abiding gun owners sell drugs to people too.
The majority of gun owners in the US wouldn't want to sell to a criminal. If nothing else, it'd be nice for the feds to come out and encourage private gun sellers to voluntarily call in NICS checks.
I'm not following the point (I'm sure I'm just not noticing it at the moment).
What makes a drug user a criminal except for the political illegality of the possession and use of the drug?