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

[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.

With all the talk of UBC now emerging, seemed like a good time to bring to folks attention again, WHY UBCs will lead to registration.

 

[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.

As some kind of universal background check law clears the senate Judiciary committee, it is worth remembering, IMHO, WHY we are all so opposed to one. Please consider calling not just our senators, but also folks like Max Baucus, etc. who may be on the fence on this one.
To get phone numbers, please us this link:
https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

 

[skycitadel]

As some kind of universal background check law clears the senate Judiciary committee, it is worth remembering, IMHO, WHY we are all so opposed to one.

Correct. The fact is it looks like we will be dealing with this idea either in the US legislature, surrounding states, and even here as proved the other day by this letter in newsok by our local police chiefs.

This should be stickied so new people dont have to dig and rediscover it.

 

[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.

UBC is not their goal: registration is their goal.
If they were serious about background checks, they would pursue the existing NICs checks that fail....they don't. Check this out:

http://www.newsmax.com/JohnLott/bradylaw-gunownership/2011/06/14/id/399967

NICs right now are useless as the above link shows.
Why would they want to expand them? Because they really want to prevent firearm violence? No, it is to create a registry.

 

[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.

Round 1 is over. The battle to keep our freedoms rages on....we cannot let up.....keep calling...keep the pressure on...take back state legislatures (in NY & CT and CO)and the US Senate in 2014....
Please consider giving the NRA and GOA as well.
And CALL your senators to THANK them.

 

[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.

Looks like it may be time to revive this thread again. Anyone thinking Universal Background checks are fair and reasonable...please read the above.
ThenCheck out this link:
http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/doj-memo-outlaw-and-confiscate-all-guns

 

[gerhard1]

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.

That a few criminals get guns through gun shows is almost certainly true, but it is also a red herring. When a gun is purchased by a stranger in a cash transaction, it disappears from the radar, in most cases forever. This is what the gun control advocates are trying to stop.

Doubt it?

Read the words of Nelson P 'Pete' Shields, founder and first president pof of Handgun Control Inc., which later merged with another organization to become the Brady Campaign.

Nelson P. Shields himself said

"I'm convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, 'This is a great law. The problem is solved.' And it's also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we'll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition -- except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal."

This is their grand plan. Now it is true that the Brady Bunch now say that they no longer advocate a total ban, but I think it is mostly a concession to political reality, more than anything else. Deep down, my hunch is that they would still like to have a toal ban, and they are just biding their time.

One thing that we most emphatically should not do is what the British NRA did. In an effort to appear 'reasonable' they gave in and supported more and more restrictions until they woke up and found that their efforts to be reasonable had resulted in the nickle and diming away of their rights to guns.

I hope to hell that we don't let that happen here.

 

[53convert]

interesting read.....

 

[Werewolf]

Feds can only regulate interstate commerce, and an FTF transaction within a state falls under state law. they would have to really stretch the argument that they should be allowed to mandate anything related to an FTF in-state sale of anything, including a firearm.

Take a look at the 1942 Wickard v Filburn decision that SCOTUS made back in the 40's. You may change your mind about your "really stretch" statement re: interstate commerce.

Read the decision and you will see the exact same argument made then could be made now. Just replace wheat with firearm.