Universal background checks????

[jworm1420]

OK can someone explain it to me. We get a background check done through private sales anyway, now they are trying to get it done through all private sales. What exactly does it mean??? Im against registry of firearms but how does this so called universal background effect that??? Im not saying i agree/disagree, i just dont quit fully understand the whole spectrum of this. Anyone with broader knowl;edge of this subject please explain. Im trying to decide if im ok with it or not. Thank you for taking it easy on me guys.

 

[Tommy2Tone]

I can meet you at a local Marsh and sell you a Glock and then we never see each other again. This is 100% legal currently.

What he is suggesting. We meet at our LGS, PAY for background checks and then I sell it to you.

Also, there is no gun registration, even with a background check at a LGS.

LGS = Local gun store.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The only universal background check I would support would be one on candidates for president, starting with verifying nationality.

 

[jedi]

I can meet you at a local Marsh and sell you a Glock and then we never see each other again. This is 100% legal currently.

What he is suggesting. We meet at our LGS, PAY for background checks and then I sell it to you.

Also, there is no gun registration, even with a background check at a LGS.

LGS = Local gun store.

technically correct that there is no gun registration but the LGS must keep a copy of the 4473 form you fill out when the background check is done. Guess who gets that paperwork if the LGS goes out of buisness? AFT. Guess what AFT does with that data? Yup they have put it into a dabase. The NRA went after them for this and while ONLY the ATF has this databse the info still exisit as a under the radar gun registrtion.

 

[Rookie]

Unenforceable.

 

[buckstopshere]

The only universal background check I would support would be one on candidates for president, starting with verifying nationality.

Congratulations, you just won the Internet.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

From 1974 to 1998, all handgun sales in the state of Indiana had to be transferred via a dealer, thus eliminating private sales.

Somehow, there were crimes in Indiana from the years spanning 1974 to 1998.

The compliance rate with such a law was near zero.

The law was completely unenforceable and made a mockery of the rest of the Indiana Code and weakened the rule of law.

Background checks are unconstitutional as they are prior restraints on a constitutional right.

Background checks are feckless as criminals do not acquire firearms via FFLs. As well, mass shooters DO pass background checks, e.g. Aurora, Colorado.

If you want to fight crime, attack the Welfare States that fosters it and allow citizens to protect themselves.

If you want to stop mass murderers, stop creating governmentally-approved slaughter pens (gun-free zones) which create the mass shootings.

Government creates the problem and then wants to "fix" the problem.

 

[Tommy2Tone]

technically correct that there is no gun registration but the LGS must keep a copy of the 4473 form you fill out when the background check is done. Guess who gets that paperwork if the LGS goes out of buisness? AFT. Guess what AFT does with that data? Yup they have put it into a dabase. The NRA went after them for this and while ONLY the ATF has this databse the info still exisit as a under the radar gun registrtion.

Yes, but with the current laws that information is pretty much useless. Other than they know at one point you bought a gun. Do you still have that gun, who knows.

 

[IndyDave1776]

From 1974 to 1998, all handgun sales in the state of Indiana had to be transferred via a dealer, thus eliminating private sales.

Somehow, there were crimes in Indiana from the years spanning 1974 to 1998.

The compliance rate with such a law was near zero.

The law was completely unenforceable and made a mockery of the rest of the Indiana Code and weakened the rule of law.

Background checks are unconstitutional as they are prior restraints on a constitutional right.

Background checks are feckless as criminals do not acquire firearms via FFLs. As well, mass shooters DO pass background checks, e.g. Aurora, Colorado.

If you want to fight crime, attack the Welfare States that fosters it and allow citizens to protect themselves.

If you want to stop mass murderers, stop creating governmentally-approved slaughter pens (gun-free zones) which create the mass shootings.

Government creates the problem and then wants to "fix" the problem.

Damnit Kirk, you're using reason and logic again. Leftists don't allow that!

 

[Rookie]

From 1974 to 1998, all handgun sales in the state of Indiana had to be transferred via a dealer, thus eliminating private sales.

Somehow, there were crimes in Indiana from the years spanning 1974 to 1998.

The compliance rate with such a law was near zero.

The law was completely unenforceable and made a mockery of the rest of the Indiana Code and weakened the rule of law.

Background checks are unconstitutional as they are prior restraints on a constitutional right.

Background checks are feckless as criminals do not acquire firearms via FFLs. As well, mass shooters DO pass background checks, e.g. Aurora, Colorado.

If you want to fight crime, attack the Welfare States that fosters it and allow citizens to protect themselves.

If you want to stop mass murderers, stop creating governmentally-approved slaughter pens (gun-free zones) which create the mass shootings.

Government creates the problem and then wants to "fix" the problem.

Like I said, unenforceable. Kirk just said it a lot better.

 

[asipes]

Yes, but with the current laws that information is pretty much useless. Other than they know at one point you bought a gun. Do you still have that gun, who knows.

Understood... but if you had that gun, you most likely have A gun or SOME guns in your possession today.

 

[indykid]

Another thing that obama-messiah failed to admit is that buzzard in Connecticut didn't buy the firearms he used, he stole them! So how are background checks going to help?

Was wondering, the great one said we need background checks to keep firearms out of the hands of people who could not otherwise legally own them. Most people take that to mean every sale requires a background check, but the people of Indiana who have a license to carry a handgun have already gone through a background check, so wouldn't having the "pink card" be enough proof?

 

[ghuns]

Like I said, unenforceable. Kirk just said it a lot better.

It's only unenforceable due to no existing national registry. When it becomes clear that elimination of the so called gun show loophole did nothing, they will just say it's cause we need a registry and call common sense gun control part II.

The one statement I heard from our Dear Leader that was just a flat out lie, was that the Aurora shooter used his assault rifle and high capacity mag to shot 70 people. WTF, I thought his AR/BETA mag jammed and he had to use a handgun and shotgun. I mean, maybe I heard him wrong. He wouldn't lie to us.

 

[Rookie]

A registry is also unenforceable.

 

[4sarge]

Another thing that obama-messiah failed to admit is that buzzard in Connecticut didn't buy the firearms he used, he stole them! So how are background checks going to help?

Was wondering, the great one said we need background checks to keep firearms out of the hands of people who could not otherwise legally own them. Most people take that to mean every sale requires a background check, but the people of Indiana who have a license to carry a handgun have already gone through a background check, so wouldn't having the "pink card" be enough proof?

Darn it !!! ALL Criminals MUST Comply with Obama's Executive Orders or it'd be just UnAmerican

 

[cosermann]

The only universal background check I would support would be one on candidates for president, starting with verifying nationality.

+1

 

[jworm1420]

im just trying to get informed so i can make an educated opinion. Im trying to hear many points of view and opinions....

 

[jedi]

Yes, but with the current laws that information is pretty much useless. Other than they know at one point you bought a gun. Do you still have that gun, who knows.

Understood... but if you had that gun, you most likely have A gun or SOME guns in your possession today.

It's only unenforceable due to no existing national registry. When it becomes clear that elimination of the so called gun show loophole did nothing, they will just say it's cause we need a registry and call common sense gun control part II.

Tommy2Tone the ultimate goal is the elimination of all guns that civilians have. The ants can not do that without some sort of starting point. The brute force way would be as asipes points out. The longer more slick way is as ghuns points out.

 

[VeteranUSN]

From 1974 to 1998, all handgun sales in the state of Indiana had to be transferred via a dealer, thus eliminating private sales.

Somehow, there were crimes in Indiana from the years spanning 1974 to 1998.

The compliance rate with such a law was near zero.

The law was completely unenforceable and made a mockery of the rest of the Indiana Code and weakened the rule of law.

Background checks are unconstitutional as they are prior restraints on a constitutional right.

Background checks are feckless as criminals do not acquire firearms via FFLs. As well, mass shooters DO pass background checks, e.g. Aurora, Colorado.

If you want to fight crime, attack the Welfare States that fosters it and allow citizens to protect themselves.

If you want to stop mass murderers, stop creating governmentally-approved slaughter pens (gun-free zones) which create the mass shootings.

Government creates the problem and then wants to "fix" the problem.

This is the best thing I have heard all day!!!!! If only politicians has this level of common sense

 

[PapaScout]

I am not for a second agreeing with BO, but most of us who do private sales like to see that little pink card to give us a warm and fuzzy when selling to people we don't know. Sort of a poor-man's background check for peace of mind.

Not sure I agree that it's mandatory and even if it were it's pretty much unenforceable.