I'm good with that! Thanks.
Universal Background Checks for all new purchases?
- Thread starter bushrat
- Start date
bushrat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 5,706
- Reaction score
- 718
Article: "Gun advocates split with NRA on background checks"
Article: "Gun advocates split with NRA on background checks"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...ee5136-84f2-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_print.html
An excerpt: “That’s more the NRA’s issue,” Steve Sanetti, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), said in an interview. “From the commercial side, we’re already there, and we’ve been there, and we were the ones that have been the strongest proponents of an effective, complete background check.”
And this:
In a statement Monday, NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said that expanding background checks is “a wrongheaded approach.”
He said that “the NRA is supportive of background checks on retail sales to ensure criminals and the mentally ill with violent tendencies do not have access to firearms.”
How is that NRA statement not hypocritical? They are essentially saying that bg checks for retail sales ensures that criminals and the mentally ill with violent tendencies don't have access to firearms. Yet if we expand bg checks to gun shows and private sales, to close a huge loophole, it's somehow a wrongheadead approach. This has to be the most asinine statement I've yet seen from the NRA.
Article: "Gun advocates split with NRA on background checks"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...ee5136-84f2-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_print.html
An excerpt: “That’s more the NRA’s issue,” Steve Sanetti, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), said in an interview. “From the commercial side, we’re already there, and we’ve been there, and we were the ones that have been the strongest proponents of an effective, complete background check.”
And this:
In a statement Monday, NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said that expanding background checks is “a wrongheaded approach.”
He said that “the NRA is supportive of background checks on retail sales to ensure criminals and the mentally ill with violent tendencies do not have access to firearms.”
How is that NRA statement not hypocritical? They are essentially saying that bg checks for retail sales ensures that criminals and the mentally ill with violent tendencies don't have access to firearms. Yet if we expand bg checks to gun shows and private sales, to close a huge loophole, it's somehow a wrongheadead approach. This has to be the most asinine statement I've yet seen from the NRA.
AlaskaHippie
New member
I haven't read this whole thread yet but will respond.
A few years back I went to purchase a brand new firearm. I had not purchased a new gun since the Brady Bill/NICS system went into effect. Much to my surprise I was DENIED! WHAT?!?! When you are denied you don't get a reason. You get a brochure that tells you what to do. You get yourself fingerprinted at your expense, fill out a form and snail mail it all to the FBI. Then the waiting begins. Bottom line is that they had me screwed up in the system and it took a YEAR to get me squared away...A YEAR! I was denied my right to purchase a firearm from an FFL or even do a transfer through an FFL for a YEAR. If universal background checks pass, how many law abiding Americans are going to run into the same thing? When this happened to me NICS was not overwhelmed like it is now. Imagine how long it will take if this is nationwide?
Also, at this point the Brady Bill outlines what gets a person denied. It is based on past behavior. Now there is all this talk about people who should not own guns based upon what the MIGHT do. HUGE difference there. Who decides who gets to own a gun?
Since the President, Fienstein and others are pointing to Sandy Hook. I'll do the same....Lets not forget that the law failed the children in CT. Adam Lanza passed the background check, was told he had to wait the 2 day mandatory waiting period then went home, killed his mother, stole her guns and committed more murder. And with a gun that was legal under the CT Assault Weapons ban. The rifle he used was NOT an assault rifle according to the definition outlined in CT law.
So, if a universal background check was in place that included something regarding the mentally ill and if Lanza had been denied because of mental illness. Would that have stopped him from doing what he did??
Be careful what you wish for...
Be careful what you wish for...
For those of you who are for UBC. How many of you have read the actual Bill that is in Congress? It contains more than just background checks. Note the catchy name.... "NRA Members" This bill has nothing to do with the NRA. I've highlighted a couple things. Notice the requirement to report to the AG if you buy 2 handguns in 5 days. I says thats non of their business. Also, currently in Alaska you don't need a CC permit but you can get one if you want. This bill puts more strings on that process. As of now, you take a course, fill out the paperwork, they run a background check, you pay the fee and get the card.
I also don't like all the legalize that gives the AG power if they think they need it.
H.R.21 NRA Members' Gun Safety Act of 2013 - TITLE I--REQUIRING A BACKGROUND CHECK FOR EVERY FIREARM SALE
Here's the summary...
Shown Here:
Introduced in House (01/03/2013)
NRA Members' Gun Safety Act of 2013 - Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit a person who is not a licensed firearms importer, manufacturer, or dealer from transferring a firearm to, or receiving a firearm from, another unlicensed person, except:
(1) through a licensed dealer or a law enforcement agency, which shall conduct a background check through the national instant criminal background check system; and (2) after inspecting a permit that confirms that such background check has been conducted. Specifies exceptions, including for: (1) the transfer of a bona fide gift between immediate family members; (2) a transfer that occurs by operation of law or by an executor or trustee because of the death of another person; (3) a temporary transfer that occurs in the home of the unlicensed transferee who believes that possession of the firearm is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the transferee; and (4) certain temporary transfers without the transfer of title at a shooting range, at a shooting competition, or while hunting, fishing, or trapping.
Sets forth requirements for a licensed dealer or law enforcement agency that assists in such transfer, including requirements to: (1) notify the transferor and transferee of compliance with background check requirements and of the receipt of any notification from the background check system that a transfer is prohibited, and (2) report to the Attorney General on such a transfer and on transfers of two or more pistols and/or revolvers to the same unlicensed transferee during any five consecutive business days. Permits such dealer or law enforcement agency to assess a processing fee.
Prohibits a licensed dealer from authorizing an employee to possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition in the course of employment unless such dealer has received a notice that the Attorney General has determined that receipt of a firearm by the employee would not be unlawful.
Authorizes the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of a federal firearms and explosives license to any individual if the Attorney General: (1) determines that such individual has been engaged in, or has provided material support or resources for, terrorist activities; and (2) has a reasonable belief that such individual may use a firearm or explosive in connection with terrorism. Allows any individual whose firearm or explosives license application has been denied to bring legal action challenging the denial. Permits the Attorney General to withhold information in firearms and explosives license denial revocation suits that would likely compromise national security. Authorizes the Attorney General to revoke firearms and explosives licenses and permits held by individuals determined to be engaged in terrorism.
Requires each person who owns or possesses a firearm to report its theft or loss to the appropriate local authorities within 48 hours after the theft or loss is discovered.
Requires each state that allows its residents to carry concealed firearms in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce to establish a process through which a resident must obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm. Requires a state to: (1) ensure that a local law enforcement agency participates in the process; and (2) require an applicant to be a legal U.S. resident of at least 21 years of age, to demonstrate good cause for requesting the permit and that he or she is worthy of the public trust to carry a concealed firearm in public, to complete a firearm safety training course, and to not have been convicted of a crime of violence.
Be careful what you wish for...
For those of you who are for UBC. How many of you have read the actual Bill that is in Congress? It contains more than just background checks. Note the catchy name.... "NRA Members" This bill has nothing to do with the NRA. I've highlighted a couple things. Notice the requirement to report to the AG if you buy 2 handguns in 5 days. I says thats non of their business. Also, currently in Alaska you don't need a CC permit but you can get one if you want. This bill puts more strings on that process. As of now, you take a course, fill out the paperwork, they run a background check, you pay the fee and get the card.
I also don't like all the legalize that gives the AG power if they think they need it.
H.R.21 NRA Members' Gun Safety Act of 2013 - TITLE I--REQUIRING A BACKGROUND CHECK FOR EVERY FIREARM SALE
Here's the summary...
Shown Here:
Introduced in House (01/03/2013)
NRA Members' Gun Safety Act of 2013 - Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit a person who is not a licensed firearms importer, manufacturer, or dealer from transferring a firearm to, or receiving a firearm from, another unlicensed person, except:
(1) through a licensed dealer or a law enforcement agency, which shall conduct a background check through the national instant criminal background check system; and (2) after inspecting a permit that confirms that such background check has been conducted. Specifies exceptions, including for: (1) the transfer of a bona fide gift between immediate family members; (2) a transfer that occurs by operation of law or by an executor or trustee because of the death of another person; (3) a temporary transfer that occurs in the home of the unlicensed transferee who believes that possession of the firearm is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the transferee; and (4) certain temporary transfers without the transfer of title at a shooting range, at a shooting competition, or while hunting, fishing, or trapping.
Sets forth requirements for a licensed dealer or law enforcement agency that assists in such transfer, including requirements to: (1) notify the transferor and transferee of compliance with background check requirements and of the receipt of any notification from the background check system that a transfer is prohibited, and (2) report to the Attorney General on such a transfer and on transfers of two or more pistols and/or revolvers to the same unlicensed transferee during any five consecutive business days. Permits such dealer or law enforcement agency to assess a processing fee.
Prohibits a licensed dealer from authorizing an employee to possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition in the course of employment unless such dealer has received a notice that the Attorney General has determined that receipt of a firearm by the employee would not be unlawful.
Authorizes the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of a federal firearms and explosives license to any individual if the Attorney General: (1) determines that such individual has been engaged in, or has provided material support or resources for, terrorist activities; and (2) has a reasonable belief that such individual may use a firearm or explosive in connection with terrorism. Allows any individual whose firearm or explosives license application has been denied to bring legal action challenging the denial. Permits the Attorney General to withhold information in firearms and explosives license denial revocation suits that would likely compromise national security. Authorizes the Attorney General to revoke firearms and explosives licenses and permits held by individuals determined to be engaged in terrorism.
Requires each person who owns or possesses a firearm to report its theft or loss to the appropriate local authorities within 48 hours after the theft or loss is discovered.
Requires each state that allows its residents to carry concealed firearms in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce to establish a process through which a resident must obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm. Requires a state to: (1) ensure that a local law enforcement agency participates in the process; and (2) require an applicant to be a legal U.S. resident of at least 21 years of age, to demonstrate good cause for requesting the permit and that he or she is worthy of the public trust to carry a concealed firearm in public, to complete a firearm safety training course, and to not have been convicted of a crime of violence.
yukon254
Well-known member
interesting synd.....the part about proving good cause should wake up a few.....
stid2677
Well-known member
This piece,,, is already being asked. My wife bought a Sig last weekend and she was asked this very question. Have you bought another pistol within the last 5 days???
(2) report to the Attorney General on such a transfer and on transfers of two or more pistols and/or revolvers to the same unlicensed transferee during any five consecutive business days.
(2) report to the Attorney General on such a transfer and on transfers of two or more pistols and/or revolvers to the same unlicensed transferee during any five consecutive business days.
Interesting. Do you care to elaborate? Who asked her? I don't think they can legally demand that info (see below), maybe they are supposed to but not all FFL's do? The last 3 handgun transfers I did I was never asked this by the FFL. With this in existence it makes me wonder why it's in this bill. There's got to be something in the legal language. Maybe it has to do with restructuring of power/authority under the AG, DOJ, and BATF. Time for some research.
http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-3310-4.pdf
- This form is to be used by licensees to report all transactions in which an unlicensed person acquired two or more pistols or revolvers or any combinationof pistols or revolvers totaling two or more at one time or during five consecutive business days. This form is not required when the pistols or revolversare returned to the same person from whom they are received.
strangerinastrangeland
New member
I dont think an Attorny General will have the time and funding to do these addional things to their normal busy day......... a year to get it on or straightend out might seem like nothing soon......
Explain to me how a back ground check will stop a criminal fom gatting ahold of a Weapon, then why a law abiding citizen should have their back ground looked into and , with out reason have it denighed, or to even have to ask to exercize that Right, a Constituional Right.
Criminals are not subjected to background checks, they just dont use that system, and the 5th Amendment says they dont have to.
Tell me , again, just what this UBC will do to improve the way things are.
Explain to me how a back ground check will stop a criminal fom gatting ahold of a Weapon, then why a law abiding citizen should have their back ground looked into and , with out reason have it denighed, or to even have to ask to exercize that Right, a Constituional Right.
Criminals are not subjected to background checks, they just dont use that system, and the 5th Amendment says they dont have to.
Tell me , again, just what this UBC will do to improve the way things are.
cod
Well-known member
Snyd.........We appreciate that you take the time to explain your experience with the bg check for the umteenth time. I do believe you are onto something with the AG's newfound powers and the legal language coming. As has been noted a time or two on these postings, powers are shifting to allow the govt to deny/sieze first, and then force those offended to fight the govt to obtain their justice. Its already being done.
Furthermore, when the NICS database does become fully realized with the prohibited persons' there will be many, many more on the list that are not being reported by almost ALL states at this time. From what I've been reading it appears that the very definition of 'prohibited persons' is going to change to the disgression of someone like the AG. Anyone that finds him or herself on that list will be required to jump thru the hoops to get ith removed.
Anyone who isnt following the direction the dots are headed are in denial.
Furthermore, when the NICS database does become fully realized with the prohibited persons' there will be many, many more on the list that are not being reported by almost ALL states at this time. From what I've been reading it appears that the very definition of 'prohibited persons' is going to change to the disgression of someone like the AG. Anyone that finds him or herself on that list will be required to jump thru the hoops to get ith removed.
Anyone who isnt following the direction the dots are headed are in denial.
strangerinastrangeland
New member
NCIS being used to find gun owner is not unheard of as a consequense to a defacto registration sytem in this country, If they cant get you that way, The'll just use the Census again, like the last time American Citizens were stripped of their Rights by Executive Power, when the were disarmed, their property confinscated, their homes taken and entire familys sent to camps for a few years.
They even came to the Arctic and took American Citizens to camps down south, and while there many were enslaved amd made to work without compensation makeing goods for the War department while in the camps.
American citizens of Japenese heritage in the 1940's are a fine example of what can happen when bad leadership, War hysteria and others ignoring their plight because it didnt effect the majority.
Its also a fine example of what can happen to individuals and whole classes of people, based on race, religion or color can have happen to them with the information that the Govornment has gatherd.
They even came to the Arctic and took American Citizens to camps down south, and while there many were enslaved amd made to work without compensation makeing goods for the War department while in the camps.
American citizens of Japenese heritage in the 1940's are a fine example of what can happen when bad leadership, War hysteria and others ignoring their plight because it didnt effect the majority.
Its also a fine example of what can happen to individuals and whole classes of people, based on race, religion or color can have happen to them with the information that the Govornment has gatherd.
stid2677
Well-known member
The handgun was purchased at the base PX and she was asked that question by the clerk while he was on the phone checking her background.
LeonardC
Well-known member
Stranger: I agree the treatment of Americans with links to Japan was (is) a stain on all of America, I don't think it would have gone well for them if they'd pulled out their guns and said "NO!".
strangerinastrangeland
New member
I agree, 100%, LeonardC, yet it is a truth and a fact that it did and could happen again.
It wasnt untill (IIRC) 1986 when Ronald Regan formally apologiozed and compensated the survivors of those days and their losses.
3 years in an interrment camp, no apologie, 25$ and a train ticket home.....if they still had a home to go to, or they took the 25$ and strted over , walking out the gates.
What do youthink? 3 years in prison for you, your wife, your children, with no Judge or even a charge, the Govornment confinscates and sells your possesions and then sends you out with 25$ and nothing more.....??
Im actually suprized that some didnt get crazy with it. Then again, they had no precedent, nor expectations, nor warning............but we do.
It wasnt untill (IIRC) 1986 when Ronald Regan formally apologiozed and compensated the survivors of those days and their losses.
3 years in an interrment camp, no apologie, 25$ and a train ticket home.....if they still had a home to go to, or they took the 25$ and strted over , walking out the gates.
What do youthink? 3 years in prison for you, your wife, your children, with no Judge or even a charge, the Govornment confinscates and sells your possesions and then sends you out with 25$ and nothing more.....??
Im actually suprized that some didnt get crazy with it. Then again, they had no precedent, nor expectations, nor warning............but we do.
LeonardC
Well-known member
Just to finish this thought...After 9-11 several leaders in this country went out of their way to let Americans know we shouldn't pick on people from the Mid-East.
Interesting Steve. Maybe it's a policy at the PX or BX that they ask as a CYA for them incase someone bought one on monday from one clerk and then one on friday from another in which case it would need to be reported. It's all the same FFL. But, as far as I can tell it is not Federal law and I cannot find where it's state law either. I cannot find anywhere where the FFL is instructed by the feds to ask about previous handgun purchases when performing a NICS check. All I can find is the requirement that if one purchases/transfers 2 or more handguns through the same FFL in 5 business days or at the same time, that the FFL is then required to fill out the Multiple Sale form.
Interesting note is that on the current form it says that one copy goes to the ATF National Tracing Center but the new UBC Bill references that Multiple Handgun purchases be reported to the AG. It references a form specified by the AG but does not mention the current form or what the info would be required on the new form. Nor does the bill reference the National Tracing Center. I have a hard time wading through all the legal jargon but every single word and punctuation mark is there for a reason and purpose. And I for one don't trust em.
This is from the new UBC Bill....
(5) if the licensed dealer assists an unlicensed transferor in transferring, at the same time or during any 5 consecutive business days, two or more pistols or revolvers, or any combination of pistols and revolvers totaling two or more, to the same unlicensed transferee, in addition to the reports required under paragraph (4), prepare a report of the multiple transfers, which shall-- ``(A) be prepared on a form specified by the Attorney General; and ``(B) not later than the close of business on the date on which the transfer requiring the report under this paragraph occurs, be submitted to-- ``(i) the office specified on the form described in subparagraph (A); and ``(ii) the appropriate State law enforcement agency of the jurisdiction in which the transfer occurs; and ``(6) retain a record of the transfer as part of the permanent business records of the licensed dealer.
knikglacier
New member
Absolutely nothing. Just a trail of laws which will lead to the ultimate knock on the door.
martentrapper
New member
Interesting thread, Mark. However, it never ceases to amaze me how someone (you) who left the lower 48 and all it's laws many years ago, regularly supports more laws. You can take the boy out of Ca. but you can't take Ca. out of the boy.............eh?
This country is mired deep in debt already. Where does the money come from to pay for all these new NICS checks? What will this do to the cost of purchasing a firearm?
Do those who support this bill really trust the govt to do a good, accurate job with this? You guys are nuts. It won't end there. More regs will come.
There is no way to enforce something like this. If 2 guys want to sell/buy a gun, how does an LEO prove the sale actually takes place? I guess we just all have to be our brothers keeper and turn in everyone we know of who buys a gun and doesn't use the NICS system.
Easy for a guy in bush Alaska to support. He won't use the system anyway. I certainly wouldn't. Doubt too many bush dwellers would either.
If we sell a pipe wrench and a guy uses to bash someone's head in..............should we feel guilty?
If this country would stop trying to help everyone else in other parts of the world, and focus on what is going on here, America would not be in such debt. It is an outrage how the government uses the tax payers dollars. Usually when someone isn't doing their job well, they get fired.
