NRA won't oppose background checks??? CALLS NEEDED !

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...al-if-democrats-cede-tough-records-fight?lite

"Senators negotiating a bill mandating background checks for all gun buyers are privately expecting the National Rifle Association not to fight the measure -- provided the legislation does not require private gun sellers to maintain records of the checks, NBC News has learned..."

IF this is true, it's complete and utter B.S. I encourage every NRA member and gun owner to light up their switchboard.

I will do so tomorrow.

As long as there is not registration involved I can't really get excited about background checks. I don't want to sell to a felon at any rate. Background checks for in family transfers would be the height of stupidity.

What I do have concerns over is the taxing of a right - if its ok to put a tax on bearing arms, then its ok to demand an ID that might cost some money to get to avoid voter fraud.

However, the thing that I see that most violates our rights of all proposals is the bans etc that try to restrict the arms most pertinent to the intent of the 2nd Amendment, from possession by the citizens that were meant to be armed as a deterrent to abuse by their own govenrment.

Considering that I no longer belong to the NRA and never will again, meh.

There is a reason that I do not belong. They demonstrate it quite nicely here.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Saxxon said:

As long as there is not registration involved I can't really get excited about background checks. I don't want to sell to a felon at any rate. Background checks for in family transfers would be the height of stupidity.

What I do have concerns over is the taxing of a right - if its ok to put a tax on bearing arms, then its ok to demand an ID that might cost some money to get to avoid voter fraud.

However, the thing that I see that most violates our rights of all proposals is the bans etc that try to restrict the arms most pertinent to the intent of the 2nd Amendment, from possession by the citizens that were meant to be armed as a deterrent to abuse by their own govenrment.

Click to expand...

The danger of background checks is that now ALL transactions will have to go through an FFL. This will add even more to the cost of the most basic firearm, putting it out of the reach of many. THAT is an infringement on the right. Can you imagine buying a $100 used HiPoint and having to pay a fee to the FFL that amounts to a 50% tax?!

The HiPoint was the only firearm my son could afford when he was in college. A $50 fee would have put that out of range.

So, I'm glad you're OK with it. What about all the poorer folk who aren't? Did you think about their Right?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/n...at-nra-wont-oppose-background-check-bill.aspx

This is what happens when you don't go to the source.

The*story*posted on NBCNews.com alleges that NRA will not oppose expanding the background check system to include all private firearm sales, "provided the legislation does not require private gun sellers to maintain records of the checks".* This statement is completely untrue.* The NRA opposes criminalizing private firearms transfers between law-abiding individuals, and therefore opposes an expansion of the background check system.**

Click to expand...

(from the story) "If that requirement is met and key Republican negotiator Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma signs on, the powerful gun lobby has signaled to lawmakers that they would not actively oppose the bill -- and not count votes in favor of it as part of its highly influential NRA lawmaker ratings..." (my bold)

Think what you may, but I have enough direct and indirect experience with politicians and the NRA to know that the above can be, and quite possibly is true.

It's all about parsing things, and not denying/speaking to certain things.

Saxxon said:

As long as there is not registration involved I can't really get excited about background checks. I don't want to sell to a felon at any rate. Background checks for in family transfers would be the height of stupidity.

What I do have concerns over is the taxing of a right - if its ok to put a tax on bearing arms, then its ok to demand an ID that might cost some money to get to avoid voter fraud.

However, the thing that I see that most violates our rights of all proposals is the bans etc that try to restrict the arms most pertinent to the intent of the 2nd Amendment, from possession by the citizens that were meant to be armed as a deterrent to abuse by their own govenrment.

Click to expand...

HAHA. So now that ALL firearm transactions will have a paper trail -- which means they can all be traced back to a specific buyer -- it doesn't bother you? Have you gave the time to any actual thought about the consequences of such a bill?

Currently FFLs have to keep ALL form 4473s for twenty years! We don't have registration, but they could very easily go into EVERY FFL in the country and determine where ALL of the new firearms that have been sold over the last twenty years have went to. What is nice is that most free states still allow the private transfer of firearms, so that new gun you bought at the FFL can be sold if no longer wanted without a paper trail.

I prefer to buy my firearms through private transfers for this very reason. And, if this would become law, we could no longer say we sold our firearms IF they came looking for them, because then we would have committed a crime and we would still end up arrested.

This bill could have severe consequences if enacted into law. The Federal government has NO business putting their nose into a private transaction between two people who live in the same state! This is just another attempted over-reach of Congress' authority! I do NOT and will NEVER support background checks for private transfers!

There is more to this than stopping the sale of firearms to convicted felons! Anyone here with an ounce of logic knows we can NEVER stop a criminal from obtaining the tools of his trade! If they know where all of the firearms are, then they know exactly where to come looking for them. I'm one of those that believe we should learn from history so it isn't repeated; and we have ALL seen firsthand what this type of legislation leads to!

yup, bogus reporting by NBC. NRA issued emails to all members, and blew up the interwebz and social media sites demolishing NBC's bogus report within only 1 or 2 hours of it first being publicized

Saxxon said:

As long as there is not registration involved I can't really get excited about background checks. I don't want to sell to a felon at any rate. Background checks for in family transfers would be the height of stupidity.

What I do have concerns over is the taxing of a right - if its ok to put a tax on bearing arms, then its ok to demand an ID that might cost some money to get to avoid voter fraud.

However, the thing that I see that most violates our rights of all proposals is the bans etc that try to restrict the arms most pertinent to the intent of the 2nd Amendment, from possession by the citizens that were meant to be armed as a deterrent to abuse by their own govenrment.

Click to expand...

How do you sell your guns? Or how you will sell your guns? Its YOUR property, sell it anyway you like.

Another pearl of wisdom from Mr. Kelly.

"Background checks do not and cannot lead to gun registration. It's a lie meant to muddy the debate and distract from our common goal -- saving lives with solutions that Americans support overwhelmingly," Mark Kelly, the husband of former Rep. Gabby Giffords, said in a Tuesday statement.

Click to expand...

Mr. Kelly is anti-liberty and anti-citizen along with being a hypocrite. Another gun totting liberal.

OC for ME said:

Another pearl of wisdom from Mr. Kelly.Mr. Kelly is anti-liberty and anti-citizen along with being a hypocrite. Another gun totting liberal.

Click to expand...

It is not so much that the checks will LEAD to registration. They won't, unless the law is changed or violated.

What they do is put into place all the elements necessary to instantly bring to life a registration process.

"OK, all you FFLs, start sending in copies of your 4473s." Every firearm that has been transferred only through the background check process can now be traced to its current owner without the warrant that would be required under today's law.

Private sales, without 4473s, are the only thing now preventing the current pile of information out there from being quickly turned into a registration system.

eye95 said:

The danger of background checks is that now ALL transactions will have to go through an FFL. This will add even more to the cost of the most basic firearm, putting it out of the reach of many. THAT is an infringement on the right. Can you imagine buying a $100 used HiPoint and having to pay a fee to the FFL that amounts to a 50% tax?!

The HiPoint was the only firearm my son could afford when he was in college. A $50 fee would have put that out of range.

So, I'm glad you're OK with it. What about all the poorer folk who aren't? Did you think about their Right?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

If I understand correctly, the "no-paper-trail" version of UBC that is being proposed would entail an honor system wherein the buyer merely shows his/her concealed carry license to the buyer (which creates issues for may issue/no issue state residents). Even though this does not appear to entail backdoor registration, I still oppose it on principle (an individual may be unable or unwilling to obtain a permission slip).

All that you state is true for a documented BC. What Mr. Kelly states is true if he were referring to undocumented BCs. He desires these checks to be documented and thus, currently, a Form 4473 must be completed to document the BC. If a new form were used, a form sans the firearm component, then the BC would/could not "register guns." The record of a BC would only exist in a government computer. Thus a BC is then worthless and would not perform the function that the anti-liberty crowd, and Mr. Kelly desires.

BC = gun registration.

eye95 said:

Private sales, without 4473s, are the only thing now preventing the current pile of information out there from being quickly turned into a registration system.

Click to expand...

What you mention is the main element preventing such a thing, but there is the often mentioned "tragic boating accident" as well, along with "theft". But yes, the anti-liberty scum do have a particularly big erection for eliminating the "gun show loophole" (fuking morons-private sales can happen just about anywhere). However, even if anonymous private sales are banned, "loss" and "theft" still exist as avenues that some gun owners would surely take. Therefore, technically, an absolute airtight form of registration would still require full compliance, which will not happen.

This is EXACTLY why I'm NOT a member. The NRA like every lobby group will do as little/much possible to remain relevant. They make too much money to lobby themselves out of business.

It is entirely unenforceable, which makes it a terrible law. It also imposes on transactions that do not involve interstate commerce.

And the problem is that average Joe thinks it's either innocuous and beneficial. They don't understand the implications.

In this digital age background check is a registration.

It doesn't go away, maybe they don't know specifics but they know you were or were not "approved".

Saxxon said:

As long as there is not registration involved I can't really get excited about background checks. I don't want to sell to a felon at any rate. Background checks for in family transfers would be the height of stupidity.

What I do have concerns over is the taxing of a right - if its ok to put a tax on bearing arms, then its ok to demand an ID that might cost some money to get to avoid voter fraud.

However, the thing that I see that most violates our rights of all proposals is the bans etc that try to restrict the arms most pertinent to the intent of the 2nd Amendment, from possession by the citizens that were meant to be armed as a deterrent to abuse by their own govenrment.

Click to expand...

Never heard of a concept called incrementalism have you?

Sure there is no registration in THIS bill; but a couple years from now the Dem-o-craps come back and say "You know this background thing is not really working too well; what we really need is to keep records of who has what so we can make sure they are doing background checks". One small step at a time, inch by inch; same damned way our little 5 pound dog can push the wife out of bed at night.

Never give 'em an inch, even if you can't see the harm now...... Rest assured the liberal Dem-o-craps have a long term plan even if you can't see it.

sudden valley gunner said:

In this digital age background check is a registration.

It doesn't go away, maybe they don't know specifics but they know you were or were not "approved".

Click to expand...

I have not performed a "over the phone" BC, or any BC for that matter, so I do not know if firearm related data is provided. Firearm data should not be required to conduct the BC. If "press two for firearm BC" or some variation thereof is part of the BC process then a firearm purchase has been linked to that citizen. That in and of itself is unreasonable in my view and a form of "gun registration."

OC for ME said:

I have not performed a "over the phone" BC, or any BC for that matter, so I do not know if firearm related data is provided. Firearm data should not be required to conduct the BC. If "press two for firearm BC" or some variation thereof is part of the BC process then a firearm purchase has been linked to that citizen. That in and of itself is unreasonable in my view and a form of "gun registration."

Click to expand...

Yea they will mention if it is a long gun etc.

Even if they didn't give details about the weapon, the gov. still knows you are purchasing a weapon. And I am absolutely convinced this info does not go away. And have seen this evidence with my own eyes, here in Washington where we are not supposed to have a registration. I know that is mostly anecdotal and not proof for anyone else though.