Some things to keep in mind about Universal Background Checks

[HoughMade]

The commercials being run by Bloomberg's group can be very effective on people who generally support gun rights, but who are not deeply involved in the fight. My parents are pro-gun, but mentioned that the idea of "universal background checks" seem reasonable. However they, and most people, don't understand how far this can go.

Here are some examples I used to great effect in explaining why the current proposed legislation cannot go forward:

- It would be a felony for an uncle to give his niece of nephew his old .22 rifle, without having a background check run on them.

- It would be a felony to take my kids to a relative's property, and then hand them a gun to target shoot while I am standing there with them, without having a background check done on them.

- In fact, it would be a felony to go out to a friend's or relative's farm and hand anyone, friend, child, or spouse, a gun to shoot for even a few minutes, without having a background check run on them.

- It would be a felony to hand a gun to anyone on your own property unless you were actually in the house or the area immediately around the house, without having a background check run on them.

- It would be a felony to allow another experienced, competitive shooter to use your gun at a sanctioned shooting competition unless the competition was run by a non-profit.

I took my kids and brother-in-law shooting at their place in the country this weekend and under the proposed law, I would have committed several felonies by allowing my properly supervised kids and brother-in-law shoot my guns on their property with their permission. When I pointed that out, they understood.

- This proposed law is not at all reasonable.

BTW- this is based upon my personal reading of Senate Bill 374 (and I am a lawyer), not any organization's talking points.

 

[24Carat]

Rep to you !

 

[Bennettjh]

I agree 100%. I am STRONGLY against UBC. People don't realize what consequences this will have. For some reason, they think this only applies to individuals selling guns to someone they don't know. They think it won't affect them giving a gun to a family member like the OP said. I contact my officials about UBC every time I think about it.

 

[Bennettjh]

Oh yeah and I forgot. Rep inbound good sir!

 

[HoughMade]

Guys, these are only a few scenarios. When you realize that the background check applies to ANY transfer of possession, even temporary and for the shortest amount of time, the common things it would make illegal are endless.

 

[richieray]

Thanks for the arguing points will be sure to use them

 

[billybob44]

GREAT Info..

Thanks so much for spelling this out..Bill

 

[andrewhorning]

OK, so...when are we going to do something about that illegal/illegitimate crime syndicate political scheme we call "government?"
It's totally off the rails because we've let it become so.
If hundreds and thousands can gather pro/con abortion, pro/con union issues...or if we can gather by the tens of thousands for our sports team, why can't we gather together for the constitutional rule of law that our politicians are trampling?
Remember, you've got no 2nd Amendment without the contract it amends!...
https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Freedom-Farm/400393880051576

 

[KLB]

I read it pretty much the same. The part about loaning at only non-profit run competitions is kind of fuzzy to me.

Here is the text if anyone would like to read it. The relevant part for this starts on page 11.

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/legislation/upload/ALB13180.pdf

 

[dboz]

It is nice having lawyers on here to interperet proposed legislation and give examples that the simplest person can understand. Rep to you sir!

 

[HoughMade]

I read it pretty much the same. The part about loaning at only non-profit run competitions is kind of fuzzy to me.

Here is the text if anyone would like to read it. The relevant part for this starts on page 11.

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/legislation/upload/ALB13180.pdf

Thanks- as to the shooting competition, non-profits and state sanctioned events.

 

[KLB]

6 ‘‘(D) a temporary transfer of possession with
out transfer of title made in connection with lawful
hunting or sporting purposes if the transfer occurs—‘‘
(i) at a shooting range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization organized for conservation purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting range;‘‘
(ii) at a target firearm shooting competition under the auspices of or approved by a State agency or nonprofit organization and the
firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting competition;

Paragraph (i) sounds like you are fine at a Shooting club. (ii) says Non-profit or State approved.

 

[HoughMade]

Yes, it depends on where the competition is.

 

[N8RV]

The commercials being run by Bloomberg's group can be very effective on people who generally support gun rights, but who are not deeply involved in the fight. My parents are pro-gun, but mentioned that the idea of "universal background checks" seem reasonable. However they, and most people, don't understand how far this can go.

Here are some examples I used to great effect in explaining why the current proposed legislation cannot go forward:

- It would be a felony for an uncle to give his niece of nephew his old .22 rifle, without having a background check run on them.

- It would be a felony to take my kids to a relative's property, and then hand them a gun to target shoot while I am standing there with them, without having a background check done on them.

- In fact, it would be a felony to go out to a friend's or relative's farm and hand anyone, friend, child, or spouse, a gun to shoot for even a few minutes, without having a background check run on them.

- It would be a felony to hand a gun to anyone on your own property unless you were actually in the house or the area immediately around the house, without having a background check run on them.

- It would be a felony to allow another experienced, competitive shooter to use your gun at a sanctioned shooting competition unless the competition was run by a non-profit.

I took my kids and brother-in-law shooting at their place in the country this weekend and under the proposed law, I would have committed several felonies by allowing my properly supervised kids and brother-in-law shoot my guns on their property with their permission. When I pointed that out, they understood.

- This proposed law is not at all reasonable.

BTW- this is based upon my personal reading of Senate Bill 374 (and I am a lawyer), not any organization's talking points.

As a disclaimer, I am NOT a lawyer, so I defer to your interpretation of SB 374 as necessary. However, in a quick scan of the Bill, I read just the opposite:

‘(t)(1) Beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, it shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (s). Upon taking possession of the firearm, the licensee shall comply with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the firearm from the licensee’s inventory to the unlicensed transferee.


‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--

• ‘(A) bona fide gifts between spouses, between parents and their children, between siblings, or between grandparents and their grandchildren;
  ‘(B) a transfer made from a decedent’s estate, pursuant to a legal will or the operation of law;
  
  
  ‘(C) a temporary transfer of possession that occurs between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee, if --
  • ‘(i) the temporary transfer of possession occurs in the home or curtilage of the unlicensed transferor;
    ‘(ii) the firearm is not removed from that home or curtilage during the temporary transfer; and
    ‘(iii) the transfer has a duration of less than 7 days; and
  ‘(D) a temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title made in connection with lawful hunting or sporting purposes if the transfer occurs--
  • ‘(i) at a shooting range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization organized for conservation purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting range;
    ‘(ii) at a target firearm shooting competition under the auspices of or approved by a State agency or nonprofit organization and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting competition;
    
    ********************************
    
    To me, that reads that the very things you listed -- gifting of guns to children, spouses, siblings or grandchildren -- are specifically exempt from this bill, as highlighted in red above.
    
    What am I missing?

 

[Fullmag]

UBC, how simple is that?

Red flags galore if Doom-berg has a commercial for it.

 

[Fullmag]

As a disclaimer, I am NOT a lawyer, so I defer to your interpretation of SB 374 as necessary. However, in a quick scan of the Bill, I read just the opposite:

‘(t)(1) Beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, it shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (s). Upon taking possession of the firearm, the licensee shall comply with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the firearm from the licensee’s inventory to the unlicensed transferee.


‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--

• ‘(A) bona fide gifts between spouses, between parents and their children, between siblings, or between grandparents and their grandchildren;
  ‘(B) a transfer made from a decedent’s estate, pursuant to a legal will or the operation of law;
  
  
  ‘(C) a temporary transfer of possession that occurs between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee, if --
  • ‘(i) the temporary transfer of possession occurs in the home or curtilage of the unlicensed transferor;
    ‘(ii) the firearm is not removed from that home or curtilage during the temporary transfer; and
    ‘(iii) the transfer has a duration of less than 7 days; and
  ‘(D) a temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title made in connection with lawful hunting or sporting purposes if the transfer occurs--
  • ‘(i) at a shooting range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization organized for conservation purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting range;
    ‘(ii) at a target firearm shooting competition under the auspices of or approved by a State agency or nonprofit organization and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting competition;
    
    ********************************

(iii) the transfer has a duration of less than 7 days; and

Just how will they know if more that 7 days?
Gun Registration?

 

[Project972]

is the star of david showing up from ww11?

 

[HenryWallace]

Can we afford to give another inch on ANYTHING?
The most obvious of laws (Constitution and Bill of Rights) are the backbone of our Liberties. Without them we have nothing.
How can there even be a talk about it??
Simple truth, like it was mentioned prior... We've already given them these inches, over and over.... Why should we be required to give more???

Anyone who wants to take your guns, is guilty of something for which they should be SHOT!

 

[Mosineer]

The way I interpet it is NO UBC, NO BANS, NO COMPROMISE.
Slam the door on the foot before the leg gets in the door

Just say'in MHO

 

[IndyZ]

The commercials being run by Bloomberg's group can be very effective on people who generally support gun rights, but who are not deeply involved in the fight. My parents are pro-gun, but mentioned that the idea of "universal background checks" seem reasonable. However they, and most people, don't understand how far this can go.

Here are some examples I used to great effect in explaining why the current proposed legislation cannot go forward:

- It would be a felony for an uncle to give his niece of nephew his old .22 rifle, without having a background check run on them.

- It would be a felony to take my kids to a relative's property, and then hand them a gun to target shoot while I am standing there with them, without having a background check done on them.

- In fact, it would be a felony to go out to a friend's or relative's farm and hand anyone, friend, child, or spouse, a gun to shoot for even a few minutes, without having a background check run on them.

- It would be a felony to hand a gun to anyone on your own property unless you were actually in the house or the area immediately around the house, without having a background check run on them.

- It would be a felony to allow another experienced, competitive shooter to use your gun at a sanctioned shooting competition unless the competition was run by a non-profit.

I took my kids and brother-in-law shooting at their place in the country this weekend and under the proposed law, I would have committed several felonies by allowing my properly supervised kids and brother-in-law shoot my guns on their property with their permission. When I pointed that out, they understood.

- This proposed law is not at all reasonable.

BTW- this is based upon my personal reading of Senate Bill 374 (and I am a lawyer), not any organization's talking points.

Excellent post.
The name of every person that contributed so much as a punctuation mark to this bill or any other bill should be listed on the front page. I think some of us would be surprised when we learned who really wrote this garbage.