Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old 01-18-2018, 8:58 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 12,463
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffC View Post
Why not have mandatory cameras in houses to make sure no one is beating their children or spouse?
While we are at it how about mandatory GPS installed in vehicles to make sure no one is speeding. The GPS can have a unique identifier to make sure the car is not stolen...
We know from studies that a lower speed limit on freeways reduces traffic accident frequency, severity and deaths - remember 55 mph during the gas shortages? And we know that increasing the price of a pack of cigarettes by "X" reduces consumption by "Y" percent, I don't recall the exact figures. We know these things without much controversy.

We don't know that mandatory background checks, UBC and the registration that must follow accomplishes anything. And yet, we have CA gunowners voluntarily suggesting it ought to be law.
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 01-19-2018, 5:29 PM
Noble Cause Noble Cause is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: California
Posts: 2,311
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
We know from studies that a lower speed limit on freeways reduces traffic accident frequency, severity and deaths - remember 55 mph during the gas shortages? And we know that increasing the price of a pack of cigarettes by "X" reduces consumption by "Y" percent, I don't recall the exact figures. We know these things without much controversy.

We don't know that mandatory background checks, UBC and the registration that must follow accomplishes anything. And yet, we have CA gunowners voluntarily suggesting it ought to be law.
Prof. Lott indicates that none of the above "Gun Crime Solutions" actually
reduce crime in the areas implemented.

He posits that the high cost of registration in areas like DC ($125)
might actually INCREASE crime because the people who need a
gun the most to defend themselves and family cannot afford it.

I seem to recall this from his 2016 book "The War on Guns", which I can't
verify at the moment because I seemed to have misplaced my copy.


Noble
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 01-24-2018, 7:16 PM
retiredAFcop retiredAFcop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: East Bay
Posts: 2,113
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser View Post
Some of these simple solutions are dangerous.



And thus creating the paper trail we are trying not to create and thus leading to de facto registration. No shop would do it without the paperwork (and I agree with them on that, I would not take the risk personally). Certainly this should be a path for those that want it



Very dangerous. I would not be checking anything with local LEA. HUGE mistake. First, there will be a transaction record of some kind as any contact should be recorded. Second if there is a false positive you are in a world of hurt. Bad idea and nothing I would ever risk.

The government as a whole is what we are trying to avoid, not bring in more government. You may trust the government in this instance but to me this is worst case scenario and big government at its most scary.



Fair points, if you personally thought real ID was good enough that is certainly your right.
The "dangers" you find in each of these voluntary solutions are undertaken voluntarily, to gain the "safety" that some think that they provide.

Any mandatory solution will have the same "dangers", yet people would have no choice in the matter.

My point is that people who see the "benefits" of a background check when buying or selling a firearm to another private party already have a lot of options (at least in free states), and can choose whether the "benefits" outweigh the "dangers".

You could even choose to sell your firearms on consignment through a storefront FFL, or only buy through FFLs, if you want a background check to be performed.

You could opt for something like the Canadian system - one that is far superior to the current California system in many ways (but still a registration system that can be used to disarm citizens) - where you pay for a background check and are issued a license (two different price and check levels, depending on what kind of guns you want to purchase) that is good for several years, and costs less than a couple of DeRoS payments. This license allows you to buy guns from anywhere in Canada - including FTF, Mail Order, and Internet. But, your name IS on a list as a "gun owner" - so even if the guns aren't specifically registered, the owners are (and the guns actually are, since sellers have to record your license information and the firearm information in order to be able to prove that they sold it to a legal buyer).

Canada is an interesting place to look at regarding guns - they passed universal firearms registration a while back, and since they claimed it was a public safety issue, registration had to be free (as it should be in California, if the state had any respect for law). After a few years, they realized that they were spending millions of dollars, and there was not increase in public safety, so they scrapped the program as a waste of money - Canada has no 2A, but at least their legislators can do math, and try not to totally waste the taxpayers' money.
__________________
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Last edited by retiredAFcop; 01-24-2018 at 7:53 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 01-24-2018, 7:23 PM
retiredAFcop retiredAFcop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: East Bay
Posts: 2,113
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by USMCM16A2 View Post
Folks,


I am for nationwide back round checks, as I have said in previous posts. To clarify, Joe wants to sell Phil and rifle. Joe and Phil go to an FFL, it is run thru the system. Comes back clean, Phil gets Joes rifle. BUT the law has to constructed in a way that the transaction does not retain the the names of the parties involved. The addresses, or the firearm information.
Back round check in my mind means just that, just a back round check. No registration. A2
In which case, Joe can simply sell Phil the item (be it ladder or rifle) and nobody can ever prove that he didn't go through the process.

After all, even if Phil is wanted for murder in 47 states, he might have flim-flammed Joe with a fake ID, or the system may have made an error.

But, since there are no records that the check ever took place - no record of the seller, buyer, or serial number - nobody could ever prove that the check wasn't conducted. In fact, neither Joe nor Phil could even prove that the check was conducted.
__________________
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 01-24-2018, 7:27 PM
theLBC's Avatar
theLBC theLBC is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 486
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

if the government has some database listing everyone that cannot own a gun, they should track down each and every one and insert a chip so they can be flagged and identified by anyone that needs to know this.
everyone else should be unmolested.

/maybe
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 01-24-2018, 7:39 PM
retiredAFcop retiredAFcop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: East Bay
Posts: 2,113
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by USMCM16A2 View Post
Gents,


Mr Brown, Mr Fletcher the example that Mr Brown cited misses the mark. The lady files a restraining order, how could her filing a RO make her a prohibited person? As I have stated, the example I gave, two folks want to exchange a firearm. They go to an FFL, an inquiry is made. If both are clear, exchange is made. No info retained or registration. Yes mistakes have been made, transactions have denied wrongly. This could be remedied by a strong appeal system to correct errors.
Any system devised by man is not fool proof. But in recognition of the changing nature of society and the nature of mass communication. Instant checks, 2A protections built in is not much to ask. A2


The lady files a restraining order, a clerk at some point mis-keys information into the system, and she shows up as having a DV restraining order against her, now she falsely shows up as prohibited and is not allowed to have access to self-defense tools - until she goes through the appeals process.

OR

The lady has a name similar to an actual prohibited person, and thus falsely comes up as prohibited and is not allowed to have access to self-defense tools - until she goes through the appeals process.

OR

The lady is the victim of identity theft, and the identity thieves have committed a felony, so she comes up as prohibited and is not allowed to have access to self-defense tools - until she goes through the appeals process.

I'm not sure how anyone can fail to grasp these simple concepts.

I guess it's time to make the mandatory interservice bash comment about the USMC, rocks with lips, single digit ASVAB scores, and room temperature IQs.

But let's move on from that. With no paper trail, there is no way to prove that the background check was ever conducted. With no paper trail, there is no way to prove that the background check wasn;t conducted.

There is no way to prove that the FFL (or whoever the buyer and seller went to for the background check) ever even performed the background check - or that the DOJ/ATF ever processed the background check.

This means that there would have to be a record of the firearm (including serial number and other identifying information), the buyer, and the seller. Also, as has been pointed out earlier, for the system to actually work, it would require that all existing firearms be registered.

That's a lot of registration.
__________________
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 01-24-2018, 7:42 PM
retiredAFcop retiredAFcop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: East Bay
Posts: 2,113
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajb78 View Post
How well do you think a system that has no way of verification of participation is going to work? How many would follow that law, with no way to prove if they did it or not? Better yet, how long until those records that aren't supposed to be kept are being secretly kept? How long until the state says that you didn't pass the background check that you actually did? Or that you sold to someone without performing the background check on them. Remember, there's no record to prove otherwise...
Exactly.

Unless you are willing to have full-on registration, you can't effectively mandate background checks for person to person sales.

The proposed ideas are simply smoke and mirrors - a waste of time and money, to no effect, and providing no public safety gain for anyone.
__________________
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 01-24-2018, 7:46 PM
retiredAFcop retiredAFcop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: East Bay
Posts: 2,113
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RazoE View Post
There was what, one case involving a particular rifle in California years ago? Haven't all handguns (and now rifles) been registered in California for decades? Have they been confiscated?
You answered your own question. Yes, registration in California has already resulted in confiscation.

Not total confiscation - yet, but a little bit of confiscation, as you admit in your statement.

Are you familiar with the concept of being "a little bit pregnant"?
__________________
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 01-28-2018, 6:35 PM
oilcanhenry's Avatar
oilcanhenry oilcanhenry is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 435
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by madjack956 View Post
I got a better idea. How about the politicians give something up for a change.

How about full-on background checks for all politicians.

No police contact, outstanding taxes, bounced checks, bad credit, drunk driving, domestic abuse, sexual misconduct etc. or they are ineligible to continue serving.

All fingerprints and DNA on file. Thorough mental health evaluations and no lifetime pension after just one term.

Any who refuse to obey the laws of the land (sanctuary cities etc.) are out of a job.

Any who deny civil rights (including the 2A) or work to pass laws circumventing the constitution are fired and/or prosecuted.

Most of these requests are just "common sense solutions" to what should already be standard operating procedure.

To answer your question, No.
Dont forget to make them pass a drug screen. Random drug screens.
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 01-28-2018, 6:43 PM
oilcanhenry's Avatar
oilcanhenry oilcanhenry is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 435
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
We know from studies that a lower speed limit on freeways reduces traffic accident frequency, severity and deaths - remember 55 mph during the gas shortages? And we know that increasing the price of a pack of cigarettes by "X" reduces consumption by "Y" percent, I don't recall the exact figures. We know these things without much controversy.
.
The 55 MPH speed limit made a ton of cash for the police. I once saw a trooper
swing over four lanes in an instant to nail a driver at 65 or 70 mph, putting lots of people on the freeway in extreme danger. As for tobacco is crosses state lines everyday of the week. Same will it be for ammo into California, IMO. People used to drink MORE during Prohibition, thus AA was formed.
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 03-04-2018, 7:00 AM
Liberty Belle Liberty Belle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 372
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogrunner View Post
Sorry fellas, but how about YOU keeping YOUR California structure where it is.............

Firearms registration is illegal.....a felony, in fact..........in my State.....I want it kept just that way.

Hopefully, the 'group-think' that sadly exists in California stays there!
THIS !! I think CA forgets there are free states that do not want to give up any of their hard won rights for another CA compromise at other states expense. Many of us left CA for that reason....apathy and eager willingness to compromise away their God given rights instead of fighting for them.
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 03-04-2018, 8:56 AM
bigcasino's Avatar
bigcasino bigcasino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 268
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

What good is a background check if police and even military dont enter prohibited people into the system? If the problem was people obtaining firearms from legal means without a background check then that would be a legitimate argument but it is not. The "Gun Show Loophole" and grandpa giving junior his first deer rifle are not a problem. It's people legally buying weapons that shouldn't be able to. Let's fix the problem not continue to do stuff that doesn't work.
__________________
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Ben Franklin
NRA Endowment Member
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
SAF Member
CCRKBA Member
CRPA Member
JPFO Member
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 03-04-2018, 9:24 AM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 2,465
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Since it is generally well known that firearms used by criminals are acquired outside of channels that are subject to background checks (~95% of the cases) any impact of 'improved' NICS will have little to no effect on crime. What's the point of background checks?
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 03-04-2018, 10:00 AM
wpage's Avatar
wpage wpage is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,249
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

+1 on annual NICS check on all politicians
__________________
God so loved the world He gave His only Son... Believe in Him and have everlasting life.
John 3:16

United Air Epic Fail Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u99Q7pNAjvg
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 8:04 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.