Universal Background Checks sans registration
- Thread starter Koda94
- Start date
- Status
dream on. voter apathy is what created this. the "it won't happen here" mentality is what created this. folks in Texas say this crap today but are blind at how Austin and Houston are proving them wrong... and they think it won't spread.... Virginia is getting the government they allowed. if you keep Mitt Romney'ing your way around political issues you will get exactly what is happening to Virginia now. and please, save the melon labe stuff for bumpers stickers because there's been plenty of opportunity for that and the resistance is only internet anger. you will be Ruby Ridged if you openly defy this next round of 2nd Amendment infringements. I hope Virginians will be able to take the same coping theory as the folks in Ca, Ha, NJ, Md, NY, Ct, Ma, RI, did I miss anyone?
buck460XVR
New member
True. Mainly, because even tho many refuse to believe it, we, as gun owners are a minority here in the U.S. Thankfully, hard core antis are a minority also. It's that third minority, those neutral to guns and their ownership that have allowed us, so far, to keep our 2nd Amendment rights. This is a country that runs on majorities.
....and when we propagate lies about "vast majorities" we are just lowering ourselves to the level we despise in the other side, and our ability to convince others, reduced.
I understand the point, but I think it should be phrased differently.
one does not ALLOW rights. If it is something that can be allowed, then it is NOT a RIGHT.
Its a language trap. Using "allowed" and "permitted" diminishes the status of rights (all of them) by inferring they are NOT rights but something that the govt must give permission or you don't have it. I know what you mean, we all know what is meant, and we all speak "sloppily" but when we do, over matters such as this, it reduces their importance, implied, if not actually.
I don't think we should say things like "the neutral majority allowed us to keep our rights.."
I think it should be stated "the neutral majority prevented the anti-gunners from stripping us of our Constitutionally protected rights.."
And note, I say Constitutionally protected, not given. The Constitution GIVES NO RIGHTS. The Bill of Rights, gives no rights. It is a list of restrictions on Government. This was intentional.
Prof Young
New member
Wow. Thanks to all who have posted here.
I'm still working my way through all of this. Lotta gray areas.
Here in IL we have to have a FOID card. That's the state.
And when I buy a gun from an FFL I have to have the NICS run. That's the Feds.
The one thing I like about the FOID is that I'm a touch more comfortable selling a gun to a private individual. They have to have a FOID card and that means they have passed a state level background check.
The one thing I like about the NICS is that they have to run it every time I'm buying a gun. Which is SUPPOSED to mean there is no federal record of my firearm purchases.
There would have to be serious corruptions at a high federal level for the feds to be recording every gun purchase in the USA. YES, I KNOW WE'VE EXPERIENCED SERIOUS CORRUPTION AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. But the way we know there has been corruption is that they get caught. Someone from the opposing party catches the corruption and slams the perpetrators to the mat.
We have an imperfect governmental system, but when I look around the world . . . I'm still glad this is home.
Life is good.
Prof Young
I'm still working my way through all of this. Lotta gray areas.
Here in IL we have to have a FOID card. That's the state.
And when I buy a gun from an FFL I have to have the NICS run. That's the Feds.
The one thing I like about the FOID is that I'm a touch more comfortable selling a gun to a private individual. They have to have a FOID card and that means they have passed a state level background check.
The one thing I like about the NICS is that they have to run it every time I'm buying a gun. Which is SUPPOSED to mean there is no federal record of my firearm purchases.
There would have to be serious corruptions at a high federal level for the feds to be recording every gun purchase in the USA. YES, I KNOW WE'VE EXPERIENCED SERIOUS CORRUPTION AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. But the way we know there has been corruption is that they get caught. Someone from the opposing party catches the corruption and slams the perpetrators to the mat.
We have an imperfect governmental system, but when I look around the world . . . I'm still glad this is home.
Life is good.
Prof Young
Last edited:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Serious corruption? Why?Prof Young said:
I guess it depends on your definition of "corruption." To me, the word "corruption" carries a connotation of a public official using his/her public office for some sort of private gain. Suppose, in the case of federal background checks, nobody involved is out to put any money (or other tangible or intangible assets) in their pocket, but they just think that the .gov "should have" a more permanent record of who is buying guns. So they just don't bother to destroy all those records that are supposed to be deleted after ___ days.
Personally, I would not be at all surprised if that's what is happening, but I don't think I would ascribe it to "corruption." I'm more inclined to ascribe it to ideology.
viciouskitty
New member
I used to sell guns for a living, we had paper forms and the ATF did sometimes come in to look at data for gun purchasers. I even had one try to get info over the phone, that person I denied because there was no way to determine if the person on the line was real. Now we submit an electronic copy to the FBI, I find it hard to believe that they don’t keep a digital record of our purchases. They claim they do not but I doubt it. The information is uploaded to their server and we typically get an instant response.
This is one of the things I detest about the current system.
I suppose its a point of view thing. I just hate the idea of #1 having to prove my "good standing" every single time and #2, the more times I get run the more chances the flawed system could come back with a "false positive" which would be a royal pain in the butt.
PERHAPS, just perhaps, mind you, perhaps we should have them keep the records. That way when I go to buy another gun they can look and say "oh, Mr AMP, you already have 47 (or 17 or even one) guns so another won't make any difference. Here ya go! have a nice day!"
Of course, they wouldn't do it that way, and the potential for abuse is huge, so I don't really advocate for that. Just wondering why couldn't we do it that way?? And yes, I know the answer, because some people don't want done that way and have the authority to prevent it.
wasn't there a case a few years ago where the FBI "got caught" keeping data they were supposed to have purged? Didn't it go to court? I don't remember. I do remember there was a claim that the "needed to keep the data longer than the law allowed for, in order to comply with..." something else I don't remember now.
Not sure how it turned out, but I think they got spanked. IF they didn't they should have been.
I agree with this, but would point out that the private gain need not be money, it could just be their own personal sense of pride from doing what they felt was the "right" thing, despite what the law actually says.
I would put following your ideology, and not the law, as a degree of corrupt behavior. just for a different kind of "profit" that isn't money.
Of course, I'm narrow minded enough to put "activist" judges in that group, as well, so take it for what you think its worth.
buck460XVR
New member
Say it anyway you like. The result is the same. All gun restrictions now in effect, do not allow us to exercise some form of your so called "protected" rights.
So much of this has come down to deviating far from the original intent of this thread. Much of it because folks want to make it much more complicated than it really is. In reality, it would be very easy and very possible, to have UBCs without registration. As I said before, for the most part, we have it now, not only at the Federal level, but at many state and local levels. I think the process could be simplified and made much more user friendly, and also, that it does little to stop criminal from getting guns.
None of our rights is absolute and without limits, "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" is a long accepted limitation, and applies to a lot of things.
Some feel the current system is swinging just barely beyond our nose, and are concerned future swings will move closer. Some feel we are already being slapped in the face and worry that the open hand slap will become a closed fist.
Several people in this thread have proposed ways background checks could be done without creating data that is, or could be used as registration.
Every proposal of this kind has been rejected by the other side. They want (even demand) a system that either directly links (registers) individual owners with individual guns now, or will allow them to do so in the future.
What is it we fear?? What we fear is that if they get the legal power to do so, they will have a list that allows them to come to your home and say "Mr AMP, you bought a Snort & Wonker .377, serial # 12343 july 31st 2021, produce it now for surrender or acceptable proof where it went, or you're coming with us!" (the other thing we fear is that it would not be a polite knock on the door, "time to give it up now, sir" but a middle of the night swat type raid where they tear apart your house looking, BEFORE they ask "politely".)
I may not see the "big picture" but I cannot see what any good a registration is, if NOT to lay the ground work for what we fear.
Here is another point to consider, seldom brought up. Mandatory UBC laws, with or without a registration component, remove your legal ability to use your own judgement. All that is ever mentioned is how the check lets you know that the stranger who is buying is OK according to available records.
Nobody (but me, it seems) mentions that the blanket coverage requirements of the law don't let me make my own decisions. And that if I want to sell, trade, give, or otherwise "transfer" a gun to someone I've known for decades, I still have to have the check done on them. Sure, its small potatoes in the big picture, but there is a principle involved here, that I don't think should be completely overlooked.
Some feel the current system is swinging just barely beyond our nose, and are concerned future swings will move closer. Some feel we are already being slapped in the face and worry that the open hand slap will become a closed fist.
Several people in this thread have proposed ways background checks could be done without creating data that is, or could be used as registration.
Every proposal of this kind has been rejected by the other side. They want (even demand) a system that either directly links (registers) individual owners with individual guns now, or will allow them to do so in the future.
What is it we fear?? What we fear is that if they get the legal power to do so, they will have a list that allows them to come to your home and say "Mr AMP, you bought a Snort & Wonker .377, serial # 12343 july 31st 2021, produce it now for surrender or acceptable proof where it went, or you're coming with us!" (the other thing we fear is that it would not be a polite knock on the door, "time to give it up now, sir" but a middle of the night swat type raid where they tear apart your house looking, BEFORE they ask "politely".)
I may not see the "big picture" but I cannot see what any good a registration is, if NOT to lay the ground work for what we fear.
Here is another point to consider, seldom brought up. Mandatory UBC laws, with or without a registration component, remove your legal ability to use your own judgement. All that is ever mentioned is how the check lets you know that the stranger who is buying is OK according to available records.
Nobody (but me, it seems) mentions that the blanket coverage requirements of the law don't let me make my own decisions. And that if I want to sell, trade, give, or otherwise "transfer" a gun to someone I've known for decades, I still have to have the check done on them. Sure, its small potatoes in the big picture, but there is a principle involved here, that I don't think should be completely overlooked.
Not really true..Dem Thomson and GOP King.
Not trying to be one of those who won't get help iff my car in broken down on a snowy highway but..just for info..another 'absolute' that isn't quite accurate. I will again mention that the gent in the 'big chair' mentioned UBC more than once as well.
You put that shoe on your own foot.
I did no such thing.
He made the dispute, therefore the burden is on him.
That's like high school debate team level knowledge.
Non-sequitur & ignoratio elenchi
I made no such dispute as his assertion was a sort of false dichotomy, I specified no "percentage".
As for definition of "vast" and "majority", try these on for size:
https://www.merriam-webster.com
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/
https://www.oed.com
I stand by my original statement, I even provided two examples that help support it.
We very well may get another today... or not.
It doesn't make me happy to make such a statement, but the fact remains that our Liberty and the Constitution itself are in a world of hurt. Not solely due to the left being masters of destructive, unconstitutional behavior, but largely due to the ever increasing laziness, apathy, and ignorance of the American people. As I also stated above, if my 25yo self heard me saying such things as I do today... I would have likely said "You're crazy old man". But the facts that surround us today speak for themselves, I fear for the future of the Republic.
I agree, but not at the expense of law-abiding citizens.
How about... oh I don't know... locking up adjudicated "nut cases" in mental institutions?
BTW Who decides what a "nut case" even is?
Local LE? A family member? A judge? Big government?
As it stands today, there are many pushes from many directions that may very well classify law abiding citizens as a potential "nut case", simply based on their words.
Which is abhorrent!
It's starting to look as if we may in fact have yet another example... unfortunately
Population of Virginia = 8,535,519
Likely number of gun owners ~ 2,845,000
Initial LE estimates of 2A rally attendance ~25,000
Indicating less than 1% of likely VA gun owners bothered to show up today
Now I'm sure many will say "Oh that estimate is way off, there were way more than that!"
Ok, multiply by ten...
Which still indicates less than 10% of likely VA gun owners bothered to show
Sigh...
American Man
New member
You just threw out a bunch of numbers and opinion and you sound like you are the authority on the vast majority of gun owners in America.I did no such thing.
He made the dispute, therefore the burden is on him.
That's like high school debate team level knowledge.
Non-sequitur & ignoratio elenchi
I made no such dispute as his assertion was a sort of false dichotomy, I specified no "percentage".
As for definition of "vast" and "majority", try these on for size:
https://www.merriam-webster.com
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/
https://www.oed.com
I stand by my original statement, I even provided two examples that help support it.
We very well may get another today... or not.
It doesn't make me happy to make such a statement, but the fact remains that our Liberty and the Constitution itself are in a world of hurt. Not solely due to the left being masters of destructive, unconstitutional behavior, but largely due to the ever increasing laziness, apathy, and ignorance of the American people. As I also stated above, if my 25yo self heard me saying such things as I do today... I would have likely said "You're crazy old man". But the facts that surround us today speak for themselves, I fear for the future of the Republic.
You crunch some numbers on NRA members the GOA and throw in a little extra... and then you do some more math by adding in forum subscribers and that is your highly educated OPINION of the VAST MAJORITY? Oh... and thank you so much for the dictionary links.
Have you ever wandered into your local LGS after a mass shooting or terror attack and see empty shelves? Not even a NAA 22lr is left on the shelves where I live. All the stores throughout the state and neighboring states get wiped clean. Online, rifles that had 100+ in stock suddenly become Out of Stock. What about trying to buy ammo online? Out of stock. Suddenly all the CCW classes are all booked up. My opinion is that it was not the NRA and GOA members, that from Jan 2009- Jan 2016, who were the ones forming lines in gun stores and buying up every single box of ammo and signing up for basic CCW classes... my opinion is that it must have been a portion of that lazy apathetic vast majority you speak of. Record number of FBI background checks for gun purchases month after month... I didn't see those numbers in your calculations... these people probably did not rise above your standard of lazy and apathetic.
I lost count of how many times this happened from Jan 2009 - Jan 2017.
All because someone else doesn't Cite things to your satisfaction despite your less than high standard of fact gathering, you don't have to tear their opinion down point by point as if that is why you were put here on earth.
Last edited:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
No, it's not "a bunch of NRA noise." The fact that some (perhaps even many) of the people who disagree with you happen to be NRA members doesn't mean the position should be disregarded or dismissed because the NRA happens (in this case) to agree with its members' position. If you think about it, isn't that what a membership organization is supposed to do -- advocate for the views of its members?bn12gg said:
I don't think very many NRA members would argue with keeping guns out of the hands of nut cases. The problem is, how do you accomplish that without further trampling on the rights of the not-nutcases to keep and bear arms?
The Second Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." According to Samuel Johnson's 1785 dictionary of the English language (which is about as close as we can come to being contemporary with the drafting of the Bill of Rights, and therefore represents our best chance of understanding what the words were supposed to convey), the word "infringe" means:
https://archive.org/details/dictionaryofengl01johnuoft/page/n1039
The Founding Fathers and their contemporaries made it very clear in abundant writings at the time that the intent was for all of "the People" to be armed. The 2A says that right "shall not be infringed." Referring to Johnson, then, we can conclude that the Founders did not want government to violate, break, destroy or hinder that right. And they didn't say "shall not be unreasonably infringed," they made it an absolute prohibition.
Since background checks are an impediment, an inconvenience, sometimes an unjustified barrier, IMHO it's difficult to argue that universal background checks are in any way consistent with the intent of the 2A.
That strikes me as a logical fallacy of the type known as "appeal to authority." I'm an NRA life member, and I disagree with you. Now what? There's one truth that applies to when two people disagree: both may be wrong, but both can't be right.bn12gg said:
I think you are looking at this bass-ackwards. Rather than denigrating VA gun owners for failing to show up, I think you ought to be celebrating the fact that nearly 1% were ABLE and willing to show up.
Lots of people support the cause but have lives where they are unable to take time off work, leave friends and family and travel across the state or the country to stand around for a few hours where some myopic politician can physically SEE them.
(and without compensation for their expenses, either)
There's no wacked billionaires providing busses and refreshments on our side. A lot of us just don't have the deep enough pockets to pay our own expenses even if we had the time, which many (possibly that "vast majority" spoken of) do not.
Doesn't mean we don't care, or necessarily that we are lazy and apathetic if we cannot meet your arbitrary standards.
Ever hear of the 1-10-100 idea? Probably not, it predates the Internet, and most of the "modern era". It's a rough rule of thumb that used to be used by newspaper editors, and political staffs, and such people who were involved in listening to public opinions. Back in the days when it took more effort to send a message than just a few minutes banging on the keyboard and then hitting "send".
They figured that for every person who actually took the time and effort to write a letter (the 1) there were at least 10 people who felt exactly the same and didn't "bother" to write, and a 100 that agreed in general.
I think tis wonderful that there were "25,000" people who spent their own time and money to show up on a Monday, a holiday for many, in JANUARY in a place that isn't sunny and warm in January, just to give a visible showing of their opinions and displeasure with the proposed laws.
and, as to this...
its already proven that existing background checks don't keep guns from nut cases, more of the same would be no different.
Perhaps its time for a different approach. Instead of trying to keep guns from the nut cases, why don't we work on keeping the nut cases from guns (and everything else they can use to harm themselves or others) ???
I don't think we could do a worse job taking that approach. On the other hand, it would cost more, so I doubt many would support it.
- Status