Coburn implies that he will not support UBC if it entails record keeping

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...n-owners-will-kill-senate-bill/#ixzz2LwV1Rs9N

Would UBCs be conducted via an honor system wherein the buyer shows the seller his concealed carry permit? If so, what are gun owners in Illinois and the various may issue hell holes supposed to do? Even if UBC passes in a form that ostensibly does not entail backdoor registration, it would seem to involve unfairness, along with a violation of liberty. I want us to completely demoralize these tyrants by not even allowing them to have a hollow, symbolic law passed (such as UBC sans any record keeping).

It doesn't matter what law says, it's naive to think that any information contained in a background check sent to the government in electronic form is not being stored.

Even if it could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that no information is retained, it's not clear to me why the government should be involved in how I dispose of my personal property. If the government is involved, it's not really a 'private sale', is it?

optiksguy said:

It doesn't matter what law says, it's naive to think that any information contained in a background check sent to the government in electronic form is not being stored.

Click to expand...

I have heard that one version of UBC would involve simply showing your concealed carry permit to the seller, with no information transmitted via telephone or the Internet.

Even if it could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that no information is retained, it's not clear to me why the government should be involved in how I dispose of my personal property. If the government is involved, it's not really a 'private sale', is it?

Click to expand...

I completely agree.

minarchist said:

I have heard that one version of UBC would involve simply showing your concealed carry permit to the seller, with no information transmitted via telephone or the Internet.



I completely agree.

Click to expand...

Sounds good to me.... But it should then be a RIGHT to have a CWL. Once you are age 21 you should only be denied one if you are positively disqualified (Violent Felony, Mental health danger determination by a court). The processing fee should be no more than $50. No training required. A pamphlet on legal carry and use in your state should be provided with the license and an updated one with each renewal (every 5 years). Gun safety should instead be taught Eddie-Eagle style in schools, and where possible there should be an opportunity for students to actually fire a .22 rifle at a range.

Show a CWP to prove what, that you are a good guy. Is the CWP in lieu of a background check? What would be the requirements for a citizen in a state such as AZ? Are we to compel the citizens of AZ to take a step backwards in our works to restore liberty?

Entertaining the notion that a debate on a universal background check system is even reasonable is anti-liberty. We entertain no such notions if the discussion is private or retail vehicle sales. The implications are disturbing and profound when self proclaimed gun rights advocates entertain such anti-liberty discussions.

arentol said:

...But it should then be a RIGHT to have a CWL...

Click to expand...

Since "L" stands for "license," that sentence essentially says that we have a right to a license!?!

No. You have a right to carry. A right to carry without a license! If that is OC only, without permission to conceal, so be it. But it is the right to CARRY that should be unfettered and unlicensed.

In Ohio (similar to Alabama) we almost have that. The only things that stand in the way are carry in a car requiring a license and GFSZ.

Anyway, I just had to point out the internal contradiction of saying that we have a right to a license.

OC for ME said:

Show a CWP to prove what, that you are a good guy. Is the CWP in lieu of a background check? What would be the requirements for a citizen in a state such as AZ? Are we to compel the citizens of AZ to take a step backwards in our works to restore liberty?

Entertaining the notion that a debate on a universal background check system is even reasonable is anti-liberty. We entertain no such notions if the discussion is private or retail vehicle sales. The implications are disturbing and profound when self proclaimed gun rights advocates entertain such anti-liberty discussions.

Click to expand...

discussing the news != endorsing the content of the news

minarchist said:

discussing the news != endorsing the content of the news

Click to expand...

It is news that there is a UBC debate. It is anti-liberty to engage in the debate. It is not anti-liberty to discuss the news coverage of the UBC debate. I would hope that the distinction is now clear to those who may have held a similar view to yours.

OC for ME said:

It is news that there is a UBC debate. It is anti-liberty to engage in the debate. It is not anti-liberty to discuss the news coverage of the UBC debate. I would hope that the distinction is now clear to those who may have held a similar view to yours.

Click to expand...

It is not anti-liberty to say that UBC in any form would involve some degree of infringement of our liberties and then to state opposition to any form of UBC. That would be pro-liberty.

Where, precisely, is our disagreement?