Why not, Nation wide background checks.

[dfletcher]

Originally Posted by Noble Cause

Emphasis mine.

Please explain...

What Problem does Mandatory Gun Registration solve ?

Hint.... its Not for solving crime.

The ONLY logical reason for Mandatory Gun Registration is for the Antis
to have a list for future Confiscation.

Why on earth would you support this ?


Noble

I edited to save a bit of space only.

Registration is a challenging issue and I think it should be broken down to two parts - political and legal. Being a professional in neither I can give only a layman's point of view.

Registration is a political hot button issue. It can be used to weed the not so stalwart from ardent 2nd Amendment supporter politicians, certainly. And by opposing on that level we prevent its implementation. But from a legal point of view it strikes me as a loser for our side.

No one was ever denied purchase or possession of a firearm based on registration - registration, by its nature, occurs after one acquires the item. So it is not exclusionary, it doesn't prohibit exercise of a core right. And we should remember that it is a legally allowed taking - it's not someone knocking on your door in extra legal activity. Confiscation occurs, in the legal sense, after some sort of due process. Whether it's the state saying "they're all banned, turn them in" or a court saying the same to an individual we'd have a rough go of it objecting to registration based on the theory it may lead to lawful confiscation.

When registration is asserted, in theory, to providing the police a starting point to attach a name to a gun I think we end up on the losing end. Which brings me back to the political aspect.

The only way for us to prevail on the issue is politically. That's why gunowners who support registration can be so injurious to our position. It's akin to a minority publicly saying "a little discrimination is OK". True, not all discrimination is unlawful. But why would someone open their yap and in doing so perhaps help the other side who may not be content with just a little discrimination or "just a little" gun control?

[FalconLair]

when they can offer me indisputable evidence that a back ground check actually saved someone's life i might ponder it's usefulness

[retiredAFcop]

Originally Posted by Noble Cause

Why do you think Canada, after spending over a Billion Dollars, dropped its
Gun Registration ? (Another Hint... it wasn't helping the police.)

The ONLY logical reason for Mandatory Gun Registration is for the Antis
to have a list for future Confiscation.

Exactly.

[retiredAFcop]

For those that want background checks (and registration) for when they buy or sell in a private party transaction, there are simple solutions.

Nothing stops a person selling a gun in a free state from meeting their buyer at a gun shop, and arranging with the shop to run a NICS/Brady check on the buyer. Most shops would probably do that, for a small fee - after all, they don't have to do any extra paperwork or jump through extra hoops - like in CA.

Nothing stops a buyer from requesting that their local LEA run the SN of a gun they are buying to make sure that it has not been reported stolen. The LEA may be too busy, or may be able to run that check.

Since my current home state is not dysfunctional, we have "real ID" available on our DLs. I can choose to restrict my private party transactions to those who also have a "real ID", if I wish to. Yes, there is no guarantee that every buyer and seller would use such a system, but the same could be said for the special ID that one poster suggested could be used to show that the ID holder was cleared to buy firearms.

In short, I have the means at my disposal to do any of the things that people in this thread want mandatory background checks for, without any special law, and without requiring registration.

[Epaphroditus]

The Brady act exempts CCW holders from NICS - not all states permit this. Would be nice to see this widespread. Many other professional licenses or professions require extensive backgound checks - those should also get exemptions.

If there must be checks let it be once a year to register to vote. Voter registration card exempts NICS checks.

Ofcourse, repeal of Brady, GCA & NFA are the long game but in the meantime ...

[FalconLair]

Originally Posted by Epaphroditus

The Brady act exempts CCW holders from NICS - not all states permit this. Would be nice to see this widespread. Many other professional licenses or professions require extensive backgound checks - those should also get exemptions.

If there must be checks let it be once a year to register to vote. Voter registration card exempts NICS checks.

Ofcourse, repeal of Brady, GCA & NFA are the long game but in the meantime ...

yup, last two gun purchases i made here they didn't have to run a background check since i have a CCW permit - saved me $25 bucks each time

just bought a Maverick 88 shotgun online, won't have to do a background check on that either - more SAVINGS in Nevada, lol

im just a couple more gun purchase away from my CCW fees paying for themselves

[dfletcher]

Originally Posted by retiredAFcop

For those that want background checks (and registration) for when they buy or sell in a private party transaction, there are simple solutions.

Nothing stops a person selling a gun in a free state from meeting their buyer at a gun shop, and arranging with the shop to run a NICS/Brady check on the buyer. Most shops would probably do that, for a small fee - after all, they don't have to do any extra paperwork or jump through extra hoops - like in CA.

Nothing stops a buyer from requesting that their local LEA run the SN of a gun they are buying to make sure that it has not been reported stolen. The LEA may be too busy, or may be able to run that check.

Since my current home state is not dysfunctional, we have "real ID" available on our DLs. I can choose to restrict my private party transactions to those who also have a "real ID", if I wish to. Yes, there is no guarantee that every buyer and seller would use such a system, but the same could be said for the special ID that one poster suggested could be used to show that the ID holder was cleared to buy firearms.

In short, I have the means at my disposal to do any of the things that people in this thread want mandatory background checks for, without any special law, and without requiring registration.

Let's add something else - by law, receive immunity from criminal prosecution and civil liability if the person to whom you sell subsequently misbehaves and injures someone or himself. When people speak of compromise, of avoiding the banality of forcing people to do something, this is modest and reasonable. And again, would go nowhere because fundamentally the other side works by forced compliance, bans and prohibitions.

[the86d]

Case Law:
"resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distri...urt_of_Appeals

.GOV should NOT need to know what one has, unless it is for future confiscation... but that is their end-game anyway.

This has been proven time and time again in other countries.
Nazi Germany had registration, they were disarmed.
Australia, and the UK had registration, and they were disarmed.

But wait, THERE'S MORE!:
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

[Guns and guitars]

If the government decided to standardize firearm ownership by national background checks then I want all these states with weapons bans lifted.
I also want open carry reinstated in every state as well as a reciprocity for all CCWs nation wide.
Not even mentioning a open registration on class II and III weapons for every state.

There has never been a business the government hasn't taken over that failed. Period. So if you are so gullible to think that the minuscule amount of crime that comes from legal guns is paramount to needed registration nationwide then you obviously dont understand the constitution.

Open the table up for all weapons I might listen, until then NO, hell No.

[ShaneB]

Originally Posted by Noble Cause

Emphasis mine.

Please explain...

What Problem does Mandatory Gun Registration solve ?

Hint.... its Not for solving crime.

Don't believe me ? New York, Hawaii, California all have Gun Registration.
Please post several examples of Gun Registration solving any criminal cases.
What ? You can't find Any ?

Why do you think Canada, after spending over a Billion Dollars, dropped its
Gun Registration ? (Another Hint... it wasn't helping the police.)

The ONLY logical reason for Mandatory Gun Registration is for the Antis
to have a list for future Confiscation.

Why on earth would you support this ?


Noble

This. I still can’t understand why people can’t grasp this fact.

[rootuser]

Originally Posted by retiredAFcop

For those that want background checks (and registration) for when they buy or sell in a private party transaction, there are simple solutions.

Some of these simple solutions are dangerous.

Originally Posted by retiredAFcop

Nothing stops a person selling a gun in a free state from meeting their buyer at a gun shop, and arranging with the shop to run a NICS/Brady check on the buyer. Most shops would probably do that, for a small fee - after all, they don't have to do any extra paperwork or jump through extra hoops - like in CA.

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

Originally Posted by retiredAFcop

Nothing stops a buyer from requesting that their local LEA run the SN of a gun they are buying to make sure that it has not been reported stolen. The LEA may be too busy, or may be able to run that check.

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.

Originally Posted by retiredAFcop

Since my current home state is not dysfunctional, we have "real ID" available on our DLs. I can choose to restrict my private party transactions to those who also have a "real ID", if I wish to. Yes, there is no guarantee that every buyer and seller would use such a system, but the same could be said for the special ID that one poster suggested could be used to show that the ID holder was cleared to buy firearms.

In short, I have the means at my disposal to do any of the things that people in this thread want mandatory background checks for, without any special law, and without requiring registration.

Fair points, if you personally thought real ID was good enough that is certainly your right.

An anonymous check that records no information is totally possible. The technology exists and could be done. I think this would be the way to handle it for those that wish to utilize it.

[Noble Cause]

Originally Posted by dfletcher

I edited to save a bit of space only.

Registration is a challenging issue and I think it should be broken down to two parts - political and legal. Being a professional in neither I can give only a layman's point of view.

Registration is a political hot button issue. It can be used to weed the not so stalwart from ardent 2nd Amendment supporter politicians, certainly. And by opposing on that level we prevent its implementation. But from a legal point of view it strikes me as a loser for our side.

No one was ever denied purchase or possession of a firearm based on registration - registration, by its nature, occurs after one acquires the item. So it is not exclusionary, it doesn't prohibit exercise of a core right. And we should remember that it is a legally allowed taking - it's not someone knocking on your door in extra legal activity. Confiscation occurs, in the legal sense, after some sort of due process. Whether it's the state saying "they're all banned, turn them in" or a court saying the same to an individual we'd have a rough go of it objecting to registration based on the theory it may lead to lawful confiscation.

When registration is asserted, in theory, to providing the police a starting
point to attach a name to a gun I think we end up on the losing end. Which brings me back to the political aspect.

The only way for us to prevail on the issue is politically. That's why gunowners who support registration can be so injurious to our position. It's akin to a minority publicly saying "a little discrimination is OK". True, not all discrimination is unlawful. But why would someone open their yap and in doing so perhaps help the other side who may not be content with just a little discrimination or "just a little" gun control?

Emphasis mine.

As always, you bring up Interesting points, but I will address mostly:

When registration is asserted, in theory, to providing the police a
starting point to attach a name to a gun I think we end up on the losing end.

The problem is that we are unable to have an "Honest Debate".

2nd Amendment Supporters often end up on the Losing End [of the Debate]
Not Because the Facts don't support our side, but because the Deck is
Stacked against us:

• Dishonesty of the Agenda Driven, Anti Gun Mass Media.
• Left Leaning Educational System which indoctrinates rather than teach.
• Hollywood constantly churning out Anti Gun Propaganda.
• Anti Gun Politicians, Mostly Democrats, use tragedy's to push Anti Agenda.
• Anti Gun Movement funded endlessly by elitists like Bloomberg & Soros.
• Constant False Accusations at the NRA, the largest defender of the 2nd Am.
• A Lot of People do not realize they are being Lied to by the Mass Media.

Between the two of us, we have probably read hundreds, if not thousands
of articles about Gun Control over the years. Don't you agree, the Anti Gun
Mass Media Always gets the story wrong ? Always.

True, on occasion, we get that Rare Unicorn where the author seemingly
attempts to present a balanced side on the issue, but they always end up
with Anti Gun Propaganda sprinkled throughout the article.

After hearing Years of this Anti Gun Propaganda Bull****, I have come
to the conclusion:

Question: How can you tell a Gun Control Advocate is Lying ?
Answer: His Lips Are Moving.

What the Anti Gun Left did not anticipate was the rise of social media
and the internet, which allowed us to bypass their stranglehold on mass media.

Which is why the Media go Bat-***** Crazy when Trump bypasses them
and directly talks to the American people via Twitter.

Once again, the Facts are on our side of the equation, and we should use
it to negate any attempt at Universal Background Checks AKA Registration
by using the internet to educate people on the facts, and encourage them
to look for themselves to ascertain the truth.

This Thread has over 4,000+ views, which is a far larger audience then
you or I could have reached in normal conversations, and when you add
FBook, Twitter, YouTube and the like Millions of people now have a viable
alternative to the traditional Mass Media "Fake News".

Although recent developments show that the Left is now actively pursuing
methods to stifle Free Speech on the Internet.


Noble

[JeffC]

Originally Posted by Epaphroditus

The Brady act exempts CCW holders from NICS - not all states permit this. Would be nice to see this widespread. Many other professional licenses or professions require extensive backgound checks - those should also get exemptions.

If there must be checks let it be once a year to register to vote. Voter registration card exempts NICS checks.

Ofcourse, repeal of Brady, GCA & NFA are the long game but in the meantime ...

As an American who values equal treatment I disagree. The law needs to stop creating special classes and exemptions. Either the law applies to all or it applies to none.
As a CCW holder I disagree. No special treatment under the law.
The NICS never should have been established. The NRA supported it to prevent a 3 day cooling off period. They should have just fought the cooling off period.

The constitution does state not the rights of ccw holder shall not be infringed....

[Steve1968LS2]

Originally Posted by SoCal P320

I'm fine with it.

National background checks even for PPT is perfectly fine with me. It will reduce the amount of potential sellers to criminals for sure.

No.. it won't stop a single criminal from getting a gun.. sorry..

[RazoE]

Originally Posted by ShaneB

This. I still can’t understand why people can’t grasp this fact.

Maybe because it's utter nonsense?

[njineermike]

Originally Posted by RazoE

Maybe because it's utter nonsense?

Yeah. Just ask Australia. Wait...

[Blade Gunner]

Originally Posted by USMCM16A2

Folks,



Background checks at the National level, all transactions. Why? Why not? Posing the question, how do you feel and why your feel that way. A2

In return for universal background checks:
No registration (as Long gun where before 2014 in CA). State(s) to destroy all prior registration records including handguns and AWs
No waiting period
No one in 30 restriction
No handgun roster
Repeal of NFA for everything but MG and explosive devices. Shall issue MG permits
Repeal of 1968 gun control act which among other things is an MG embargo(MG shouldn’t cost $20k and be toys only for the rich)
Universal shall issue CCW
Universal stand your ground law.
No caliber restrictions
No ammo ban
All state and local level gun control laws null and void

I don’t think felons, foreign nationals, the mentally deranged should be allowed to buy guns.
MG are extremely dangerous. Some additional scrutiny is appropriate, but a $500 M16 shouldn’t cost a private citizen $20k.

Will this stop gun crime. No, gun crime committed by criminals will remain, however gun crimes committed by the State of California will be completely eradicated.

[Noble Cause]

Originally Posted by Noble Cause

Emphasis mine.

Please explain...

What Problem does Mandatory Gun Registration solve ?

Hint.... its Not for solving crime.

Don't believe me ? New York, Hawaii, California all have Gun Registration.
Please post several examples of Gun Registration solving any criminal cases.
What ? You can't find Any ?

Why do you think Canada, after spending over a Billion Dollars, dropped its
Gun Registration ? (Another Hint... it wasn't helping the police.)

The ONLY logical reason for Mandatory Gun Registration is for the Antis
to have a list for future Confiscation.

Why on earth would you support this ?


Noble

Originally Posted by ShaneB

This. I still can’t understand why people can’t grasp this fact.

Originally Posted by RazoE

Maybe because it's utter nonsense?

And Yet, RazoE, you leave No Argument as to Why
"it's utter nonsense."

I am quite willing to debate the issue.

Please explain to us what Problem Gun Registration solves and why its
a Good Idea to spend (extrapolating from Canada's failure) Billions of $$ ?

Even the UK reluctantly admits, buried in a report from 2008, gun
registration has very little, if any, impact on solving crime and is
not worth the cost and effort linking the databases:

Parliament UK Publications
2 Jun 2008.
https://publications.parliament.uk/p...80602w0043.htm

" As a consequence, it was agreed that any risk of legally held firearms being
used for criminal purposes was so low that given the difficulty of automating
a matching process between systems, the cost of building such an interface
would outweigh any perceived benefits."


Noble

[njineermike]

Originally Posted by Noble Cause

And Yet, RazoE, you leave No Argument as to Why
"it's utter nonsense."

I am quite willing to debate the issue.

Please explain to us what Problem Gun Registration solves and why its
a Good Idea to spend (extrapolating from Canada's failure) Billions of $$ ?

Even the UK reluctantly admits, buried in a report from 2008, gun
registration has very little, if any, impact on solving crime and is
not worth the cost and effort linking the databases:

Parliament UK Publications
2 Jun 2008.
https://publications.parliament.uk/p...80602w0043.htm

" As a consequence, it was agreed that any risk of legally held firearms being
used for criminal purposes was so low that given the difficulty of automating
a matching process between systems, the cost of building such an interface
would outweigh any perceived benefits."


Noble

He won't. RazoE has a long standing habit of calling other posters ignorant, then never bothering to back up his statement with any facts. He's nothing but hot air.

[USMCM16A2]

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

[njineermike]

Originally Posted by USMCM16A2

Folks,


I am for nationwide back round checks, as I have said in previous posts. To clarify, Joe wants to sell Phil and rifle ladder. Joe and Phil go to an FFL, it is run thru the system. Comes back clean, Phil gets Joes rifle ladder. 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 ladder information.
Back round check in my mind means just that, just a back round check. No registration. A2

FIFY

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by USMCM16A2

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

You're going to base your support for a legal mandate on the best case scenario? Really? Well, what about this:

Jane is a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record at all, and wants to buy a gun from Joe, because that restraining order she got against her crazy ex-boyfriend isn't doing squat. They go to an FFL and run the transaction through the system. The system rejects the transaction and claims that she's a prohibited person. The sale is thus denied, and she has to go through a time-consuming appeals process to get cleared. While she's in the process of waiting for her appeal to be processed, her ex-boyfriend stabs her to death in her driveway.

Don't think it can happen? Something very much like that did happen to Carol Bowne: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/06/10...un-permit.html

Don't think the background check process can issue false denials? Wrong again. The false denial rate for the initial check is around 0.5% (see https://crimeresearch.org/2014/12/cp...ground-checks/ for a more detailed examination). That's 5 out of every thousand people who are initially denied. But it's precisely the initial denial that is sufficient to put someone like Carol Bowne in harm's way. People can lose their lives over this crap!

That's what background checks get you. I don't have a problem with having a background check mechanism made available to anyone who wants to sell a firearm, because it enables people who want to perform their due diligence to do so. But to have its use demanded by law? Hell no.

[USMCM16A2]

Mr Brown,


How is Jane going to be prohibited from purchasing a firearm. If it is the boyfriend that has the restraining order? And as I stated, the only acceptable form of nationwide back round checks, is no registration or retention of the transaction. A2

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by USMCM16A2

How is Jane going to be prohibited from purchasing a firearm. If it is the boyfriend that has the restraining order?

Because the background check system isn't 100% foolproof and does issue false positives. See the link I supplied for the details on that. Are you going to contend that the background check system can't falsely claim someone to be prohibited? Because it does, at a rate of around 5 people per 1000.

While the appeals process will most likely result in eventual approval, the point here is that the process can result in immediate denial. When you need a gun, you need a gun, and may need it immediately. The background check process introduces the possibility that you won't be able to get one when you need it, and the failure to get one when you need it can cost you your life, as it did Carol Bowne.

Like I said, you are basing your approval of mandatory background checks on the best case scenario. But what matters the most when it comes to laws governing the most sacrosanct Constitutionally-protected fundamental right is the worst case.


Let me put it another way: forcible imposition of a system that has any possibility of improperly depriving you of your right to effective self-defense is unacceptable. A mandatory background check system is precisely such a system. You can't make it foolproof, so you can't rightfully impose it upon the law-abiding population. People will die because of it, and that's a fact. Carol Bowne is proof.

And as I stated, the only acceptable form of nationwide back round checks, is no registration or retention of the transaction. A2

The scenario I raised above is independent of that. It doesn't matter if the transaction is retained or not if the system wrongly denies you the ability to effectively defend yourself.

[dfletcher]

Originally Posted by USMCM16A2

Mr Brown,


How is Jane going to be prohibited from purchasing a firearm. If it is the boyfriend that has the restraining order? And as I stated, the only acceptable form of nationwide back round checks, is no registration or retention of the transaction. A2

We should first call it what it is - a ban on the private sale of firearms, because when one seeks government permission and authorization the transaction is no longer private. Semantics aside, and please be specific, how would you enforce "UBC" without registration? I'll give a specific example of an issue.

Let us suppose UBC took effect 1 Jan 2018. Let's suppose I live in a state that prior to 1 Jan 2018 allowed (about 2/3rds of states do) private sales. I have many "paperless" handguns in my collection, let's go with my 1935 made Colt Shooting Master in 357 Magnum. It's now 16 Jan 18 and for some reason I have incidental contact with the police - it could just as well be a Game Warden. I advise them of the gun. Since laws are meant to be enforced they ask "how long have you had it?" and when I answer "long before 1 Jan 2018" they say "prove it".

Let's put the above on hold for now .....

Same situation as above. Same gun. Except that you sold it to me, privately and illegally with no paper, on 2 Jan 18.

Without a record of when that gun changed hands how do I protect myself against an over eager cop? Conversely, without a record of when that gun changed hands how do we expect the police to catch "bad guys" and enforce the law? Now, you can default to "if you say it's yours the cops can't question otherwise" and my response is that sure takes the universal out of UBC.

It is important to note that with UBC one is not simply saying "this guy is OK" but rather that one is memorializing the transaction - that's a "must do" otherwise, as demonstrated above, one cannot distinguish between compliance and violation. Further, more than recording transactions from 1 Jan 2018 forward all privatey held firearms must be registered to establish a base of compliance, grandfathering them. Otherwise there are about 350 million exceptions to the law.

The above has nothing to do with whether UNC can be challenged in court or whether it's effective. I'm asking simply how a viable, enforceable UBC can be constructed without universal registration.

[USMCM16A2]

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

[ajb78]

Originally Posted by USMCM16A2

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

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...

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by USMCM16A2

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?

Ah, I see the problem.

You think in my scenario that the denial was because she was a prohibited person. No. In my scenario, she is not a prohibited person and the background check mechanism made a mistake, and improperly denied her.

Please revisit my questions with the above in mind.

[Noble Cause]

Originally Posted by njineermike

He won't. RazoE has a long standing habit of calling other posters ignorant, then never bothering to back up his statement with any facts. He's nothing but hot air.

Yeah, you called it.

I guess RazoE wants Gun Registration because Feelings, since he
apparently is unable to articulate any good reason for spending BILLIONS
of Dollars on a Left Wing Boondoggle when our National Debt is
approaching $21,000,000,000,000 Dollars.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

For something that won't solve any problems except to give the willfully
ignorant a "Good Feeling" because "at least we did Something !"
is sheer Stupidity.


Noble

[dfletcher]

Originally Posted by USMCM16A2

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

I wasn't referencing the restraining order question. And I'm not concerned, for this discussion, about mistakes in background checks.

Your method is flawed because it clears the buyer only and there is no way to verify if the gun in one's possession went through the process. There is no way of distinguishing between compliance and non-compliance. It is self-apparent, it seems to me, that "no record" precludes verifying compliance or violation.

How would the process you describe resolve the circumstance I proposed between a lawful transfer and possession and an unlawful transfer? Is doesn't. All it does is verify that Individual A, at the time of a background check, was not prohibited from taking possession of a gun. That may be a worthwhile goal, but it is not UBC.

With respect to your closing paragraph - you suggest that restricting the sale of private property, with no proof of public safety benefit, isn't too much to ask. Because we're in a "changing world". The same could be said for unfettered interstate travel or privacy, of due process or free speech. After all, each carries with it some risk to society, yes? And I would note you seem to suggest UBC ought to exist on its own because it is good, rather than a vehicle for getting something in return.

[RazoE]

Originally Posted by Noble Cause

Yeah, you called it.

I guess RazoE wants Gun Registration because Feelings, since he
apparently is unable to articulate any good reason for spending....Noble

Never said I advocate registration. I don't. My comment was about, should it happen, that it would lead to confiscation.

[Noble Cause]

Originally Posted by RazoE

Never said I advocate registration. I don't. My comment was about, should it happen, that it would lead to confiscation.

Hard to ascertain that from "Nonsense", but I guess your a man of few words
and very little explanation.

I guess we will just have to take your word for it, since you didn't bother
to explain how you arrived at this conclusion.

Lets review cases just in Canada to start with, since we have a lot
in common with our friends to the North, in which Gun Registration
lead to confiscation:

Canada. The handgun registration law of 1934 was used to id and confiscate
(without compensation) over half of the registered handguns in 2001.
By Dave Kopel, research director, and Dr. Paul Gallant & Dr. Joanne Eisen
http://davekopel.org/NRO/2000/Civil-...-in-Canada.htm
One reason is they have realized that gun registration really does lead to
confiscation. Handguns have been registered in Canada since 1934, and
for decades, the Canadian government only used the registration records for
innocent purposes. But shortly after winning election in November 1993,
the new government imposed an administrative decree banning over half of
all handguns. The current registered owners may retain the guns until they
die, and then the guns must be surrendered to the government.
No compensation will be paid for the confiscation.


Then Canada decided to Confiscate Armi Jager AP-80 and the Walther G22:



Registration Will Lead to Confiscation
The Blaze. 1/9/2013
https://www.theblaze.com/contributio...o-confiscation
Last year Canada ended its national long gun registry, a national database of
every rifle and shotgun in the country that was supposed to help police track
the movement of and sale of weapons. When it was introduced twenty years
ago critics said the registration of firearms would eventually lead to
confiscation, a criticism dismissed as ridiculous, yet that’s what happened
and more right up until its dismantling.

As recently as last winter law abiding gun owners who had complied with
the registry were having their rifles confiscated. In late 2011 hundreds if not
thousands of people who had legally purchased the Armi Jager AP80, a .22
calibre variant of the AK47, were informed that their rifles had been
deemed illegal and must be surrendered .

“You are required by law to return your firearm registration certificates,
without delay, either by mail to the address shown in the top left corner of
this page or in person to a peace officer or firearms officers. You have 30
days to deliver your firearms to a peace officer, firearms officer of Chief
Firearms Officer or to otherwise lawfully dispose of them,” read the letter
sent by the Canadian Firearms Centre.

Copy of the Letter found here:
http://firearmslaw.ca/wp-content/upl...ion-notice.pdf


A few more Hints:

Gun Registration has been used for Confiscation in all of the following:

California
New York City
Australia

Many foreign countries as well, which I won't bother to list for now.

So we already have multiple examples of it happening, always with the
Anti Gunners vehemently denying it will happen , despite the historical
record saying otherwise.


Noble

[RazoE]

1) This isn't Canada or Australia. 2) 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? 3) Have RAWs been confiscated? 4) NFA items elsewhere? Do you actually believe such a thing could happen nationwide? As I said, utter nonsense.

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by RazoE

1) This isn't Canada or Australia. 2) 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? 3) Have RAWs been confiscated? 4) NFA items elsewhere? Do you actually believe such a thing could happen nationwide? As I said, utter nonsense.

Ah, the old "it can't happen here" Disney-esque approach to problem solving.

Yeah, they said that about all sorts of things in many places. Nazi Germany couldn't happen. Until it did.

So keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, the only way to ensure that it really can't happen here is to presume that it CAN and to take the steps necessary to actually prevent it. Like, say, preventing registration schemes from seeing the light of day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[IVC]

Originally Posted by RazoE

1) This isn't Canada or Australia. 2) 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? 3) Have RAWs been confiscated? 4) NFA items elsewhere? Do you actually believe such a thing could happen nationwide? As I said, utter nonsense.

The main anti-gun argument is "have they ALL been confiscated?," or "nobody wants to take ALL of your guns."

We call "confiscation" and "infringement" when SOME are confiscated. So, whether someone wants to take all of them or not, we don't want it and we will fight against it.

To understand why, consider someone trying to justify sodomy laws by saying "nobody wants to ban ALL sex." Or, in your case, "they only banned one type of sex and it was decades ago."

[IVC]

Originally Posted by kcbrown

Yeah, they said that about all sorts of things in many places. Nazi Germany couldn't happen. Until it did.

Godwin Law Alert!

However, it's a good point - it's even worse in this case because these things HAVE happened and we have people claiming they COULDN'T happen.

[jwkincal]

~ 145,000 weapons are registered under the 1999 Assault Weapons Ban

~ 1 in 100 people die each year in the US for any reason

.01 deaths/year x 17 years X 145,000 firearms = 25,000 weapons confiscated via this "harmless" registration scheme.

...and the exact same fate awaits the remaining 120,000 firearms, legally obtained and responsibly held by their owners, taken from them only because of an arbitrary and capricious government with questionable motives. And this year there are many tens (if not hundreds) of thousands more being added to that list.

People saying that "no confiscation has ever happened," are blatantly (and presumably deliberately) prevaricating.

[Noble Cause]

Originally Posted by RazoE

1) This isn't Canada or Australia. 2) 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? 3) Have RAWs been confiscated? 4) NFA items elsewhere? Do you actually believe such a thing could happen nationwide? As I said, utter nonsense.

So Confiscation Doesn't Matter Unless its Nationwide ?
That's your Gold Standard ?!

You admit its already happened in California (see jwkincal excellent
post on the matter), and then proceed to basically say:

"Hey, it hasn't happened yet, (even though it has) so it will Never Happen !"

Wow, are you in denial.

California RAWs are being confiscated through Attrition...

Just because its a slow process doesn't mean its any less of a confiscation.
Your legally owned property cannot be sold or even given away
to your own family, with basically the state of California stealing
it from your estate.

And lets not forget about California bypassing Due Process with
Department of Justice’s Armed Prohibited Persons System, where
DOJ agents can raid peoples homes and seize their guns just because
their name shows up on a List, just like when they Confiscated this mans
gun collection, despite him Not being a Threat to himself or others:

Legal Gun Collection Seized
http://www.guns.com/2015/11/20/attor...tion-is-legal/

The Clovis area man, Albert Sheakalee, 59, went through mental health treatment last summer, which, unknown to him, landed him in the California Department of Justice’s Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS) database. This, as touted in a press release Wednesday by state Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris, barred him from firearms ownership and triggered a 12-hour raid on his home from Bureau of Firearms Special Agents on Nov. 12, which ended in his arrest for possessing illegal firearms.

The thing is, argues Sheakalee’s attorney Mark Coleman, is that the weapons are legal and the state violated not only his Second Amendment rights to possess them, but also as he wasn’t aware he had been placed in the database, was denied his right to due process to clear up any misunderstanding before the raid.

“He has never been adjudicated as any sort of threat to anyone,” Coleman told the Fresno Bee. “And despite his desire to find help, Sheakalee found himself on a government list which the Department of Justice claim denies him the right to own firearms.”

Eventually, Mr Sheakalee prevailed in court, and DOJ was forced to return
541 illegally confiscated firearms, but Only after a lengthy, expensive
lawsuit. How many people have had their property seized like this, and
could not afford a lengthy and expensive lawsuit ?


Lets review More Cases where some form of Confiscation
(thru outright seizure or attrition) has already occurred in US:

Katrina:
A Decade Later, Remember New Orleans …
Gun Confiscation Can (and Has) Happened in America
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015...ned-in-america

U.S. Virgin Islands (Order issued)
Gun Confiscation: An Evil Wind Blows in America
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2017...ows-in-america

New Jersey:
Toughest Ban on Assault Rifles in U.S. Takes Effect in N.J. Today
LA Times. 5-31-1991.
http://articles.latimes.com/1991-05-...assault-rifles
Confiscation on the minds of NJ Senators, showing their real intent:
CONFISCATION! NJ Senators CAUGHT Mocking Gun Owners
Committee Meeting May 9, 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMptQ_YfvzE



New York
New York, 2013: The SAFE Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NY_SAFE_Act

There is more, but this is sufficient to show Confiscation is on the minds
of the Anti Gunners, and they will implement whenever they can, despite
constantly assuring Americans "they Support the 2nd Amendment"

To pretend that Nation Wide Confiscation could Never
Happen is to ignore history.

If you had said "Nation Wide Confiscation" is Unlikely to occur
at this moment in time, I would agree with you on that one
point, and only under our current situation (Pro Gun President, Republicans
holding Congress).

But the Democrats are absolutely obsessed with disarming America, and
as long as they persist is shoving ever increasing levels of Gun Control
on Americans (and Billionaires like Bloomberg & Soros fund it) the danger
will remain.


Noble

[dfletcher]

Whether one prefers to use the term confiscation or lawful taking we should remember each comes about as a result of legislation and/or due process. To assert neither can happen is to in effect say neither any state nor the United States will ever pass such legislation. If there are folks here sufficiently equipped to tell the future I'd prefer they instead send me their line on the upcoming Super Bowl results.

[JeffC]

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...