Man shoots Co-Workers in office building after altercation.

[Catawba]

Explain how a "universal" NICS background check law will work on the 300,000,000 guns now in private hands, with perhaps 30% of those being in the hands of their original FFL dealer recorded hands. Of the 9 guns that I bought in the last 40 years from FFL dealers only one of them is still in my posession.

We won't know until we see the legislative proposal.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Failing with the 9% who support selling guns to criminals and crazies in 40 states I wear like a badge of honor!

Do you ever get tired of lying?

 

[Catawba]

Flawed analogy. Gun control is supposed to indirectly stop people from killing people by taking away their tools. Traffic laws are meant to directly keep traffic controlled to prevent accidents.

I don't believe laws that are meant to indirectly coerce a certain behavior are a good idea, mainly because our government is made up of nitwits, and people are routinely able to outsmart such laws.

What are murder laws meant to do?

 

[Kal'Stang]

Murder laws don't stop people from committing murder and traffic lights don't prevent people from running red lights. Are you proposing we do away with traffic lights and laws against murder?

No one has a right to murder someone else. People have a right to own guns. No one has a right to drive. People have a right to own guns.

See the difference?

 

[geewrd]

What are murder laws meant to do?

Directly disincentivize murder. There's no ulterior motive to the law.

 

[Catawba]

No. I am simply saying that passing more unenforcable laws, turning otherwise law abiding folks into "criminals" for simply possessing what they bought perfectly legally is not going to do anything productive. The fact that my legally purchasd handgun has a 15 round magazine does not make it OK to render it non-resellable, or to require that I now must disclose or record its sale. It is moronic to expect that simply complying with a gun control law will cost me, or any other citizen, $30 to $50 in additional taxes/fees to appease some liberal do gooders. If I commit a crime then try me, convict me and lock me up, but to simply redefine a legal right into a crime, based on the logic that it makes real crime a bit harder to accomplish for some perceived "boogie man" is insane.

I fail to see how requiring the same BGCs at gun shows for unlicensed dealers is more unenforceable than requiring BGCs from FFL dealers. Seems like your issue is what is going to cost you personally rather than what is in the best long term interest of the country.

 

[ttwtt78640]

We won't know until we see the legislative proposal.

How can you be for something that you cannot define? I am opposed 100% to forcing all citizens to use FFL dealers as a middle man in private gun sales. Imagine the outrage if all priavte car sales were mandated to go through a licensed auto broker? Once guns are required to be registered it is likely a matter of minutes (at most) until they are taxed as well. Passing a federal law to cover private property registration/sales control is a first that I do not wish to see.

 

[Catawba]

No one has a right to murder someone else. People have a right to own guns. No one has a right to drive. People have a right to own guns.

See the difference?

Background checks do not stop the purchase of guns from law abiding citizens, therefore no infringement of rights. Which is why since the federal law requiring them in 1994, BGCs have never been ruled to be an infringement of rights.

 

[geewrd]

I fail to see how requiring the same BGCs at gun shows for unlicensed dealers is more unenforceable than requiring BGCs from FFL dealers. Seems like your issue is what is going to cost you personally rather than what is in the best long term interest of the country.

Because what you call an unlicensed dealer is a private seller. When you don't have registration or titling, it's impossible to enforce a point of sale law on private transactions. But you already know that, and when universal BGCs fail miserably, you'll be braying about the need for universal registration not long after.

 

[Catawba]

Directly disincentivize murder. There's no ulterior motive to the law.

Same thing for gun laws. Making it harder and more expensive, provides less incentive for gun violence.

 

[haymarket]

Because what you call an unlicensed dealer is a private seller. When you don't have registration or titling, it's impossible to enforce a point of sale law on private transactions. But you already know that, and when universal BGCs fail miserably, you'll be braying about the need for universal registration not long after.

Several states already have this on the law books. California allows private seller sales but they must go through a licensed dealer.

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs

I want to sell a gun to another person, i.e., a private party transfer. Am I required to conduct the transaction through a licensed California firearms dealer?

Yes. Firearm sales must be conducted through a fully licensed California firearms dealer. Failure to do so is a violation of California law. The buyer (and seller, in the event that the; buyer is denied), must meet the normal firearm purchase and delivery requirements. "Antique firearms," as defined in Section 921(a)(16) of Title 18 of the United States Code, and curio or relic rifles/shotguns, defined in Section 178.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations that are over 50 years old, are exempt from this requirement.

Firearms dealers are required to process private party transfers upon request. Firearms dealers may charge a fee not to exceed $10 per firearm for conducting a private party transfer. Example:

For a private party transfer involving one or more handguns, the total allowable fees, including the DROS, safety, and dealer transfer fees, are not to exceed $35.00 for the first handgun and $31.00 for each additional handgun involved in the same transaction.
For private party transfers involving one or more long guns, or a private party transfer involving one handgun, the total allowable fees, including the DROS, safety, and dealer transfer fees, are not to exceed $35.00. The dealer may charge an additional dealer-service fee of$10.00 per each additional firearm transferred.
(PC section 12072(d))

Over 90% of the public supports this concept in recent surveys.

And yes, to work it must be coupled with a national registration system.

 

[Catawba]

How can you be for something that you cannot define? I am opposed 100% to forcing all citizens to use FFL dealers as a middle man in private gun sales. Imagine the outrage if all priavte car sales were mandated to go through a licensed auto broker? Once guns are required to be registered it is likely a matter of minutes (at most) until they are taxed as well. Passing a federal law to cover private property registration/sales control is a first that I do not wish to see.

Most of us have no problem whatsoever requiring background checks for all gun sales. Perhaps you should call your Congressman with your concerns.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Background checks do not stop the purchase of guns from law abiding citizens, therefore no infringement of rights. Which is why since the federal law requiring them in 1994, BGCs have never been ruled to be an infringement of rights.

With your logic then it should be perfectly acceptable to require that everyone that votes pay a fee to do a background check and also have a little card or "license" which says that they can vote. After all if requiring those things are not an infringement on a right then the same applies to voting....right? This simple little arguement shows why not only you, but SCOTUS as well is wrong. SCOTUS has contradicted itself.

 

[haymarket]

With your logic then it should be perfectly acceptable to require that everyone that votes pay a fee to do a background check and also have a little card or "license" which says that they can vote. After all if requiring those things are not an infringement on a right then the same applies to voting....right? This simple little arguement shows why not only you, but SCOTUS as well is wrong. SCOTUS has contradicted itself.

Please read your copy of the US Constitution. There is specific and unmistakable language in it which expressly forbids such a fee attached to voting.

Amendment 24
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other
election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or
Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be
denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to
pay any poll tax or other tax.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.

 

[Catawba]

With your logic then it should be perfectly acceptable to require that everyone that votes pay a fee to do a background check and also have a little card or "license" which says that they can vote. After all if requiring those things are not an infringement on a right then the same applies to voting....right? This simple little arguement shows why not only you, but SCOTUS as well is wrong. SCOTUS has contradicted itself.

Do let us know how you make out in court with that argument!

 

[Kal'Stang]

Please read your copy of the US Constitution. There is specific and unmistakable language in it which expressly forbids such a fee attached to voting.

Amendment 24
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other
election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or
Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be
denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to
pay any poll tax or other tax.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.

What tax? Sorry but paying for the paper, lamination, and work involved to do a BGC is not a tax. Its paying for a service to be done.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Do let us know how you make out in court with that argument!

Unfortenately I would never make it to court. Not only do I not have the money to pursue that arguement I also do not have standing as that is what is needed to take anything before SCOTUS...asssuming of course that they would even hear it. But then I would imagine that is exactly what you and yours hope will happen. That people won't be able to make it to SCOTUS.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I fail to see how requiring the same BGCs at gun shows for unlicensed dealers is more unenforceable than requiring BGCs from FFL dealers. Seems like your issue is what is going to cost you personally rather than what is in the best long term interest of the country.

To get access to the NICS database requires a FFL, how does the agerage Joe renting a gunshow booth, or the man on the street, like you, get that NICS database access? You are exactly right that I care what it will cost me, I would be insane not to. It is very easy indeed to mandate that "some other citizen" must pay for your "good idea". That "who cares what it costs" attitude is responsible for our nations 40% defict. Placing "user fees" on 2A rights yet disallowing them for voting, or having an attorney during police questioning, makes no sense at all. It is either a Constitutional right, or a state issued privilege after paying a fee - it cannot be both. A FFL dealer gets a decent profit for his time, and rightly so, but should in no way profit from my private sale, simply because it makes you feel better.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Most of us have no problem whatsoever requiring background checks for all gun sales. Perhaps you should call your Congressman with your concerns.

I have done so, including presenting an alternate solution to accomplish that task.

 

[haymarket]

What tax? Sorry but paying for the paper, lamination, and work involved to do a BGC is not a tax. Its paying for a service to be done.

If the money is paid to the government as a fee to exercise a right, it is six of one and a half dozen of the other or two times three or nine minus three or half of two times six.

The same argument you just made was rejected crushed and flushed, smashed and trashed. People were said to be NOT paying a tax to vote, only a fee for the cost of the election. BBBBZZZZTTTTT!!!!!! The big buzzer said it did not carry any weight then and would not carry any weight now.

 

[Catawba]

I have done so, including presenting an alternate solution to accomplish that task.

Good for you! I think it is important for the public to be actively involved in our representation. I have contacted my representatives to let them know I support requiring background checks for all gun sales!

 

[geewrd]

Same thing for gun laws. Making it harder and more expensive, provides less incentive for gun violence.

So the whole indirect vs direct thing went right over your head? How has the indirect war on drugs fared so far? Drug use at an all time low? Addiction rates?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Please read your copy of the US Constitution. There is specific and unmistakable language in it which expressly forbids such a fee attached to voting.

Amendment 24
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other
election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or
Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be
denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to
pay any poll tax or other tax.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.

Excellent point. Using string language like "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to
pay any poll tax or other tax." is far better than the "shall not be infringed". Folks wised up and used more concise langage in the 24th than in the 2nd amendment. Perhaps it is time to get our nine robed umpires to define "infringed" once and for all, so far they will only occassionally say that is a bit too much, yet you are welcome to try again.

 

[geewrd]

Please read your copy of the US Constitution. There is specific and unmistakable language in it which expressly forbids such a fee attached to voting.

Amendment 24
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other
election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or
Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be
denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to
pay any poll tax or other tax.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How is having to pay a fee not an infringement on my right.

 

[Catawba]

To get access to the NICS database requires a FFL, how does the agerage Joe renting a gunshow booth, or the man on the street, like you, get that NICS database access?

From what I understand, most often FFL dealers also have booths at gun shows. So all a gun buyer has to do is just mosey on over to the FFL dealers booth to get his background check.

You are exactly right that I care what it will cost me, I would be insane not to.

Well, I don't what to tell you there ttwt, it seems the great majority of the country, including myself, feel that the little extra cost for those who deal in guns is worth restricting access of guns to criminals and crazies.