Why closing the "Gun Show Loop Hole" leads to registration of all weapons

[abajaj11]

Check this video out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPaa7TiK_Gk&feature=player_embedded

Registration always leads to confiscation.

 

[sixseven]

I guess I'm one of the minority here, but I support the universal background check. It doesn't have to be so complicated as everyone is making it out. I have bought several guns from dealers and have heard the phone calls. The NICS check person only asks "handgun, shotgun or rifle". Yes, I know the exact firearm and serial number are recorded in the FFL's register. Why not institute the universal background check, but instead of focusing on the GUN, focus on the PERSON. You want to buy a gun from someone FTF, open up the NICS number to the public so they can call and simply find out if the PERSON is legally allowed to own it. No need to record serial numbers or any of that nonsense. Hell they could even make an iphone app for it. Alcohol used to be illegal, now when you buy it they check your ID to make sure you qualify to own it. They don't RECORD your ID, they don't RECORD what type of alcohol you're buying. Does anyone else see a problem with doing it this way or am I in the only one that sees no issue with it? I believe they should have a national database of firearms that have been reported STOLEN, which could also be as simple as an iphone app. No need to register all of the legally owned guns, number of guns you own or anything else. Hell there is really no reason to even to make a record of the seller's name. A simple yes or no if the person in question is legally allowed to own a firearm. We do basically the same thing everyday when someone writes us a check. Call the bank to verify funds. Do they ask your name? Nope. Do they ask what you're selling them? Nope. Just whether or not the person has enough money in their account to own your goods. If I can come up with this idea in 30 seconds, why hasn't anyone else?

 

[okiebryan]

 

[abajaj11]

I guess I'm one of the minority here, but I support the universal background check. It doesn't have to be so complicated as everyone is making it out. I have bought several guns from dealers and have heard the phone calls. The NICS check person only asks "handgun, shotgun or rifle". Yes, I know the exact firearm and serial number are recorded in the FFL's register. Why not institute the universal background check, but instead of focusing on the GUN, focus on the PERSON. You want to buy a gun from someone FTF, open up the NICS number to the public so they can call and simply find out if the PERSON is legally allowed to own it. No need to record serial numbers or any of that nonsense. Hell they could even make an iphone app for it. Alcohol used to be illegal, now when you buy it they check your ID to make sure you qualify to own it. They don't RECORD your ID, they don't RECORD what type of alcohol you're buying. Does anyone else see a problem with doing it this way or am I in the only one that sees no issue with it? I believe they should have a national database of firearms that have been reported STOLEN, which could also be as simple as an iphone app. No need to register all of the legally owned guns, number of guns you own or anything else. Hell there is really no reason to even to make a record of the seller's name. A simple yes or no if the person in question is legally allowed to own a firearm. We do basically the same thing everyday when someone writes us a check. Call the bank to verify funds. Do they ask your name? Nope. Do they ask what you're selling them? Nope. Just whether or not the person has enough money in their account to own your goods. If I can come up with this idea in 30 seconds, why hasn't anyone else?

Suppose you had 5 guns. You sold one to your neighbour. Without a background check. How would the Feds know you did that and broke the Universal Background Check (UBC) Law? They would have NO WAY OF KNOWING it because they did not know you had that gun in the first place.

Congress cannot pass a law and then deny the Executive branch the ability to monitor if the law is being followed or broken. The only way to monitor the UBC law with any degree of effectiveness is to have a database of who owns what firearms, so if it is sold and shows up somewhere else, the Feds can know if UBC was followed or not.

All POTUS and Attorney general Holder are eagerly waiting for, IMHO, is one little bone from Congress...just one little "reasonable, common-sense" UBC law....then they are off running...it will happen so quickly that it will take our breath away... I give it 2-3 years before confiscations are routine and we have been effectively disarmed..

 

[sixseven]

Suppose you had 5 guns. You sold one to your neighbour. Without a background check. How would the Feds know you did that and broke the Universal Background Check (UBC) Law? They would have NO WAY OF KNOWING it because they did not know you had that gun in the first place.

Congress cannot pass a law and then deny the Executive branch the ability to monitor if the law is being followed or broken. The only way to monitor the UBC law with any degree of effectiveness is to have a database of who owns what firearms, so if it is sold and shows up somewhere else, the Feds can know if UBC was followed or not.

All POTUS and Attorney general Holder are eagerly waiting for, IMHO, is one little bone from Congress...just one little "reasonable, common-sense" UBC law....then they are off running...it will happen so quickly that it will take our breath away... I give it 2-3 years before confiscations are routine and we have been effectively disarmed..

Make the penalty for unlawfully possessing a firearm (ie felons) much stiffer. I don't know, just a thought.

 

[abajaj11]

Make the penalty for unlawfully possessing a firearm (ie felons) much stiffer. I don't know, just a thought.

Defining the penalty is part of the law created by the legislature.
Once the law is passed, along with penalties, etc. then the execution of the law is up to the executive branch. They need to be given powers, in fact their powers flow from, the laws that they enforce. Part of effectively being able to enforce a law is to monitor with some degree of efficacy, when that law is being broken. Providing almost no monitoring ability to the executive branch cannot be done. Either the law is repealed, because its execution is found unconstitutional or the executive is empowered with greater powers.
It's possible that if UBC is passed, then a federal registration will be demanded by the POTUS and DOJ and it may be found unconstitutional in the Supreme Court. In which case the law will be repealed because it's execution will lead to constitutional violations. Do we really want to take that chance with this supreme court? MAybe not but that may be our last option if UBC is passed by Congress.
If we all do our part and call call call and join the NRa, GOA & SAF then it is likely this law will not be passed by COngress.

 

[abajaj11]

Sen. Coburn on radio today indicates he wants to "listen to what the anti-2As have to say re: Universal Background checks".
I sent him a letter reproduced below. PLease consider also sending something similar to his office so he knows what we, the constituents, feel.
__________
Dear Sen. Coburn,
While we all agree that guns should not be sold to criminals or dangerously insane people (less than 1% of all mentally ill people BTW), I have a serious concern about a Universal background check (UBC). The concern is that a UBC will require firearms and ownership registration at the national level in order to allow any kind of monitoring whatsoever.

Think about how a federally mandated background check on ALL firearms will be implemented. Right now, only firearms sold through FFL dealers have to pass a NICs (Form 4473) test in all states, and in some states the state laws mandate that all transfers have to be through an FFL dealer. The feds regulate the FFL dealers and do not keep records of transactions, but the FFL dealers have to. If an FFL dealer goes out of business, those records go to ATF for storage. Now imagine extending this requirement to ALL buyers and sellers of firearms. Well this is impossible.

So the feds will say, well let us just require all states to do what California, for example, does already. All transfers must go through an FFL. But what to do about the millions of unregistered guns in the USA? How do the feds know who owns them? If they don't know who owns them, how will they verify that ALL guns are being sold after a NICS check? Well, the FEDs will come back and say: "We cannot implement your new law unless you allow us to register all firearms". So the inevitable next step to mandating background check on ALL firearm sales will be a demand to Congress that all firearms be registered, without which the law will be impossible to enforce. An Executive Order may be signed requiring a National Firearms Database in order to implement this law.
Registration is a very bad idea and always leads to confiscation. In any case, the intent of 2A is to allow the citizens to withstand tyrannical takeover by a central power with a central standing army...in today's parlance: the federal government. Registering firearms with them is like having the coyote guard the hen house.

For the reasons above, I strongly urge you to not vote for UBC, and to inform your colleagues about the potential dangers of this "reasonable" sounding Bill.
Sincerely
____________________

 

[MoBoost]

The funny thing is that they make NICS/FBI sound like a "good"/"fair"/"common sense" thing.

They have NO OBLIGATION to give "proceed" - none whatsoever. What stops them from having an answering machine saying "Hi, we are FBI and your transaction is DENIED"? It's not like they give you an explanation - you have to write letters and go through month of crap.
Multiply that by few million.

They call it "Universal background check" - but what it means is "Prohibition of private sales" just doesn't sound as cool. If a sale has to go through Federal agency - how is it "private"?

 

[abajaj11]

IMHO, the assault weapon ban bill and the mag cap limit bills are all SMOKE and MIRRORS. they want us to focus on those while they try to SNEAK the universal background check through the senate.
Gun owners of America and the NRA have cottoned on to this strategy and are aware of the dangers of how UBC will lead to registration.
Check this out:
http://www.gunowners.org/a01212013.htm

I am talking ONLY about why we are opposed to the UBC check and how it will lead to registration, when I call my senators and Congressman's offices once a week.
PLease consider doing the same. UBC MUST BE STOPPED.

 

[abajaj11]

Seems like some republicans may be looking to cave on the "gun show loophole" and may be OK with requiring federally mandated NIC checks for ALL sales, even those private FTF sales in states.

Here IMHO is why this is a really bad idea:

1. There is no Gun show loophole. The exact same state and federal laws hold IN a gun show as outside it. Closing the "gun show loophole" means basically mandating at the federal level that all sales of firearms HAVE to go through NIC checks (Form 4473). The Federal government should have no jurisdiction to regulate commerce within a state, so this may be a hard one to pass constitutional muster. However, it may be the Dems are hoping they can say that "if a firearm was used once in interstate commerce then we can regulate it forever". This argument has already been upheld by the US Supreme court in the GunFree School Zones Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990)

2. Think about how a federally mandated background check on ALL firearms will be implemented. Right now, only firearms sold through FFL dealers have to pass a NICs (Form 4473) test in all states, and in some states the state laws mandate that all transfers have to be through an FFL dealer. The feds regulate the FFL dealers and do not keep records of transactions, but the FFL dealers have to. If an FFL dealer goes out of business, those records go to ATF for storage, and are never lost. Now imagine extending this requirement to ALL buyers and sellers of firearms. Well this is impossible.

So the feds will say, well let us just require all states to do what california, for example, does already. All transfers must go through an FFL. But what to do about the millions of unregistered guns in the USA? How do the feds know who owns them? If they don't know who owns them, how will they verify that ALL guns are being sold after a NICS check? Well, the FEDs will come back and say: "We cannot implement your new law unless you allow us to register all firearms". So the inevitable next step to mandating background check on ALL firearm sales will be a demand to Congress that all firearms be registered, without which the law will be impossible to enforce.

Registration is a VERY bad idea. Registration will not prevent a crime since a legal gun may be stolen and used by a criminal (like in the Newtown case) and of course a criminal will never register an illegitimate gun they may already own.
So, the only reason for registration is keeping tabs on legal gun owners, and if needed, confiscation of firearms.

Since the 2A was written to provide a well regulated (trained) populace that could be stronger than any standing army that a tyrant could raise, the LAST thing the armed populace wants is for potential tyrants to know who has what firearm. That is why this insidious "background checks for all sales" bill MUST be resisted. it will open the door to registration in a year or two.
Just my 2 cents.

From the huffington post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/25/obama-gun-control_n_2761488.html):
""I think we hit a snag, there is no doubt about it," said Jim Kessler, a former director of policy and research at Americans for Gun Safety and co-founder of the centrist-Democratic organization Third Way. "I know that there are real differences between the parties on this. But it is definitely too early to throw in the towel. They agree on a lot. And there still may be some way to figure it out."

At issue is record-keeping. Currently, when a background check is administered for a firearm purchase, the record of the check is destroyed, but the record of the sale is kept, usually by the retailer. Under a bill that expands background checks to include private purchases, the question becomes what to do about the sales record.

Democrats insist the record must be kept. Without it, the purpose of expanding background checks becomes moot, they argued. There would be no way to show or prove that a transaction took place. In addition, it would make a federal trafficking statute toothless, making it impossible to charge someone for the straw purchase of guns on behalf of those prohibited from owning them.

But Republicans negotiating over the background check legislation are wary of creating anything resembling a federal database. As the Washington Post's Greg Sargent reported, the main Republican negotiator on the bill, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), opposes keeping a sales record for purchases that take place over the Internet, (a major method for gun purchasers in remote areas ).

Democrats have offered Coburn several options to circumvent the impasse, aides said. They've proposed having the manufacturer of the gun keep the sales record; having the seller of the gun keep the sales record; or having a retailer do the record-keeping as a third-party observer to the transaction.

"We are not committed of one idea of who should retain a record. We just want to make sure there is a record," said an aide to a lawmaker working on the bill. "We are flexible about who maintains that record. ... But [the record] is the only way that makes the background check requirement enforceable."

Coburn's office declined to comment.

Senate Democrats could, theoretically, work around Coburn in hopes of finding five other Republicans to back the bill. But the other Republican negotiator, Sen. Mark Kirk (Ill.) has an F rating from the NRA, and likely wouldn't persuade Republican colleagues to follow his position. A spokesman for Kirk did not return a request for comment about his position on the bill.

"There is real value to having Coburn involved in background check legislation," said Kessler. "It is another A-rated senator, in this case a Republican. He would bring other votes with him. So there is real utility to having Coburn involved. And he has negotiated in good faith so far."
"

________________________

Please consider calling Coburn's office and saying that any form of UBC will be used by the left to create databases. Even if Coburn does not want databases created on who owns what, the left only wants that. All they are waiting for is some legislation, and then they will be off on the executive branch side issuing exec orders, policy directives, etc in order to strangle gun sales and gun owners.