Mandatory FFL Checks?

[dom1104]

I'm a liberal and am completely against gun control. Might want to change a few words if you want your argument to hold any weight.

Then you are not a liberal.

Sorry sally.

 

[superstorm]

The real issue here is that the honest man does'nt have a chance criminals will still get there hands on guns they will just make the black market guys rich. We need to stand together and uphold are rights as AMERICAN'S.

 

[BE Mike]

I'm a liberal and am completely against gun control. Might want to change a few words if you want your argument to hold any weight.

If you voted for Obama, your words have no weight.

 

[Classic]

A willingness to compromise will do us in as gun owners. I, for one, am not willing to "accept" ANY further restrictions on my right or the right of others to "Keep and Bear Arms". Restricting my rights in this area WILL NOT reduce crime and is therefore unnecessary and unwanted. Getting some gun owners to compromise (especially if your particular shooting sport isn't affected directly, i.e. skeet and trap shooters wouldn't be directly affected by a military weapon ban.) is simply a way to divide and conquer us. STOP TALKING COMPROMISE PLEASE.

 

[henktermaat]

This is why we can't have nice things.

 

[revance]

how so?

Assume I wasn't a law abiding citizen... do you think I would waste the time to call in if I really didn't want to ? Would any of the criminals that break into your neighbors house to steal the guns, would make the call before they sell them to the 'other' criminals ?

Do I need to call in and get permission to sell my snow blower on Craigslist ?

just offering a different perspective

Notice I did question it's effectiveness in my own post.

 

[jb1911]

I gotta admit, I'd be willing to live with this. As much of a hassle at it would be to sell a gun on here or armslist, if it meant no other gun laws were passed, I'd deal with it.

This comment and your sig do not agree with each other.

 

[jb1911]

The traitor John Roberts says that the Unaffordable Health Care Act is constitutional, that tells me that Congress can pretty much make us all wear pretty dresses and dance the mambo.

 

[donballz]

Then you are not a liberal.

Sorry sally.

This is such a funny attitude. As if there is only one issue.

 

[traderdan]

Perhaps I am.

Note though, I said that if this is the ONLY thing passed, I'd consent. Not sure how many private sales you've done; but when a man with a hobo beard stained with Skol meets you at Denny's after dark; you may reconsider.

Judging books by the cover causes a reader to miss a lot of good information.

 

[Miles42]

Different States different laws. In Pa you can not sell a hand gun to any one without going through a FFL holder.

 

[terrehautian]

In Ct., a private transaction has to go through a government office (and maybe a FFL but not sure on that) that involves a waiting period.

 

[Movealongmovealong]

If a mandatory background check law was implemented, I would prefer that people could go to their local LE office and have the check done for free or a very low cost. LE offices obviously have the capability, and we already pay a hefty amount of taxes for their services.

It should also be one fee per total transfer, NOT per firearm.

 

[traderdan]

Making all transactions go through the FFL process is in effect, registration.

 

[bwframe]

Making all transactions go through the FFL process is in effect, registration.

Yes it is. And we know what that is the first step to...

 

[WebSnyper]

As I posted in the Armslist thread, Congress cannot require anything involving the 'Gunshow loophole'. That is a private intrastate transaction. The State of Indiana would have to pass the law.

Why are some of you willing to give up your rights to Congress when they don't have the power to regulate it?

The argument would be that higher up the chain there is interstate commerce and that they have the power to regulate it. Congress has used this argument successfully on other issues.

 

[Classic]

So how would mandatory registration and waiting periods prevented ANY of the last several major tragedies? Anyone? How about some of the closet liberals lurking out there? Enlighten me.

How would this type of increased regulation prevented anything?

 

[traderdan]

Feinstein,in spite of her doublespeak,is in favor of confiscation....In a few decades (or maybe less),with the decline of patriotic intellectual reasoning in this United States,this MIGHT be accomplished.

 

[TheWabbit]

The argument would be that higher up the chain there is interstate commerce and that they have the power to regulate it. Congress has used this argument successfully on other issues.

They used successfully in the drug trade, which is regulated by the Feds. But even that argument falls apart now that Obama has told the States to enjoy the Mary Jane. The other times always involve interstate commerce in some direct way. They pressure the States to pass the state laws they want (like seat belts) by withholding Fed money. However, in this case, the Indiana Constitution also states:

Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

If the Feds knew they would win, they would have challenged Montana's law telling the Feds to butt-out of firearms regulations made and sold in Montana.

 

[Martin Draco]

Doesn't anybody remember when this is the way it was done before the instant checks? I remember years ago when i would sell a gun, the buyer and I would go to a gun store and pay $5 to do a transfer. If the buyer had an LTCH they could take it that day, if not the shop held the gun for the required amount of time.

I think there should be a way for a civilian to do a NICS check. I don't think it would affect any privacy, since criminal records are public record.