Correct ne uf I'm wrong

[Dirtebiker]

What i am proposing is NOT going to stop a "bad guy" from getting a gun, nothing can do so. IF only the police had guns, a bad guy could walk up behind a policeman and hit him in the back of the head with a brick and take his gun.
What I am advocating is a simple, free, way for us to make sure that the person we deliver a firearm to is a "proper person". Right now, there s NO WAY to do this. A non FFL cannot do a NICS check. If we go through a dealer, there is a cost of $20-$50, AND the serial number and make/model of the firearm IS recorded, which could lead into a national database and eventual firearms confiscation.

I must have missed where you showed us how we can do what you are advocating. "a simple, free, way for us to make sure that the person we deliver a firearm to is a 'proper person'."
Oh yeah, you haven't! And CAN'T! It's impossible!
First, NOTHING is free! Do you think federal employees don't get a paycheck? Are the phone banks "free"? What about my time?
Second, it's impossible to tell if someone is a "proper person"! Even if you could, what happens when they become "improper" after the sale?

So, are you arguing with yourself now?

 

[Caleb]

I must have missed where you showed us how we can do what you are advocating. "a simple, free, way for us to make sure that the person we deliver a firearm to is a 'proper person'."
Oh yeah, you haven't! And CAN'T! It's impossible!
First, NOTHING is free! Do you think federal employees don't get a paycheck? Are the phone banks "free"? What about my time?
Second, it's impossible to tell if someone is a "proper person"! Even if you could, what happens when they become "improper" after the sale?

So, are you arguing with yourself now?

 

[vedearduff]

Before you start the hate mail, pease read this entire post, and offer rational suggestions. My point is that by law, we must verify that an individual is 21 before we can give or sell them alcohol, and no one screams that this is an infringement of our rights. What is wrong with a NICS check (with no weapon information conveyed) requirement for the sale of a firearm? This would not be a "firearm registry" as some fear, because there would be no record of the weapon OR the serial number. It would simply be to verify that the person you are transferring a weapon to, is not a criminal or disqualified individual. You and I both know that ANYONE can walk into a gun show and walk out with any number of handguns, rifles, and "assault weapons" without ANYONE verifying that they are not a criminal, mentally insane, an illegal, etc, simply by purchasing from individuals or those selling from "private collections". I know the term "disqualified individual" is open to discussion, and CAN be changed by government whim. However, if we agreed to a simple background check, and the government later decided that redheads and blondes would now be "disqualified individuals", we could use common sense, and just go back to what we do now. In the interim, just maybe, we might stop some crazy from obtaining a firearm.

I'm replying to this without reading the entire thread. I apologize in advance if my comments duplicate anything.

The only way a universal background check is enforceable is to register all currently owned firearms.

Consider the following:

How will the authorities know whether I'm in compliance with the new UBC regulations? Lets say that I currently have three rifles two shotguns and four pistols (not accurate, but also not important). A year after the UBC is enacted; I decide to sell one of my rifles. I sell it to a relative who I know to be a "proper person" so I don't bother with the trip to a gun shop so we can do the UBC routine.

How will there be any chance for the authorities to prove their case in the unlikely event that the suspect this has happened. They would have to prove when the transaction took place. If it was I rifle I've had several years (well before the UBC was enacted), I could have sold it prior to the new regulations.

For any type of enforcement to be possible, we would have to register all firearms owned prior to enactment.

If I'm wrong about this, please convince me. I seriously doubt that you are able to do so.

 

[Mark 1911]

Nobody from the government is coming over to confiscate my beer.

 

[DFM914]

NO

 

[cosermann]

... What is wrong with a NICS check (with no weapon information conveyed) requirement for the sale of a firearm? ...

Are you advocating for the wisdom of the bills soon to be voted on in the U.S. Senate?
Is the discussion in this thread in the context of these bills?
Just trying to clarify.

 

[SideArmed]

Either HK got the point or he is off today. Lots of questions posted to him that he has left unanswered.......

 

[Caleb]

Either HK got the point or he is off today. Lots of questions posted to him that he has left unanswered.......

I doubt he got the point, he's one of those pro-government "think about the children" liberal it seems by the way he keeps going on how we need more government to protect us from ourselves.

As Ron white says, you can't fix stupid.

 

[Jack Burton]

Here is a way that is the simpliest that I've run across. It's not perfect, but if society changes enough to force us into somewhat of a ubc I would rather do it this way.

Fred wants to buy a gun... doesn't matter from where. He logs onto a website and inputs his basic info. Within the normal speed of a NICS check the approval comes back, and he prints out a certificate with a unique number code on it. This certificate is good for 90 days and Fred can buy how ever many guns he wants. The system would have to be sophisticated enough to know it is actually Fred on the other end of the computer and not Fred's neighbor, being nosey about if Fred can buy a gun. This can be worked out.

The website does not store info about Fred and his approval, other than that the unique number is valid. This number can now be verified either over a computer or by phone by the seller.

If Fred chooses to buy a gun from a FFL this certificate takes the place of a background check. If Fred chooses to buy a gun from a private party this certificate allows the pp to know that Fred is an "approved" person.

The certificate is certainly subject to some abuse that we can all pick on, but with the unique number it is not able to be successfully counterfeited.

The critical key here is that Fred's request and approval for the certificate is not stored. Only the certificate number and date issued.

BTW, 90 days is just an arbitrary timeframe. The anti gunners would want it to be three hours, the pro-firearm people probably want a 365 day timeframe for it to be good.

AGain, I am not recommending that we do this. But if we are forced to so something, I think this would be about the best.

 

[cosermann]

How about we go back to the legal framework of 1919?

We were all just as safe (or safer) when there were no serial numbers, no 4473s, no NICS, sales through the mail, etc.

It's all been a downhill correlation with increasing firearms legislation.

 

[theblackhat]

Be prepared and ask more relevant questions:

- Shouldn't people have a licence and background check to vote?
- What about a permit to post on the internet?
- Shouldn't your church be approved by the government to ensure it's "safe" for your kids?
- Why should a well known crook be allowed to take the 5th, when everyone knows he's guilty?

Etc.

ALL rights are vital and if any one is infringed, the rest are not going to stand. The Constitution is simply a piece of paper representing an idea. If people and their elected representatives disrespect it, there will be no rights in the future.

Are you saying these things should be in effect or are you positing for arguments sake?