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 > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 03-24-2013, 4:38 PM
glocksmith's Avatar
glocksmith glocksmith is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Earth.
Posts: 504
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OniKoroshi View Post
Universal background checks for welfare...
Indeed.
__________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Thomas Jefferson.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 03-24-2013, 5:04 PM
Hippies_Have_Guns_Too's Avatar
Hippies_Have_Guns_Too Hippies_Have_Guns_Too is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,783
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Perhaps we should counter by adding an amendment to the bill which also requires a universal background check for anyone and everyone who votes.

Then sit back with a box of popcorn and watch their hypocrisy fly. Let them cry Jim Crow. They'll only be referring to themselves.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 03-24-2013, 6:07 PM
a1c's Avatar
a1c a1c is offline
CGSSA Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lake County, CA
Posts: 8,874
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GayGuns View Post
Universal Background Checks: the Liberal Holy Grail
By Rick Averill

SNIPPET:
Feinstein's assault rifle ban has been removed from the Senate gun-control bill. While that is good news, it was recognized from the beginning as a bridge too far. What has survived, and may well become law, all in the spirit of bipartisan compromise, will actually be far worse.
I cannot take that article seriously if the guy actually wrote "assault rifle ban" instead of "assault weapon ban." That's a sure sign he doesn't know what he's talking about.
__________________
WTB: French & Finnish firearms. WTS: raw honey, tumbled .45 ACP brass, stupid cat.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 03-24-2013, 6:59 PM
GaryV's Avatar
GaryV GaryV is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 886
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The author of the article is clearly no more knowledgeable about guns and laws relating to them than the people he's attacking.

That said, it's clear that he's right about the intent of the universal background check bill currently in the senate. Two weeks ago senator Tom Corburn offered to throw Republican support behind the background check bill if any provisions leading to permanent record keeping (i.e., a de facto covert gun registry) were removed. Senator Schumer turned down this compromise, essentially saying that the Democrats would not accept any version of the bill that did not include permanent record keeping. And when one looks at the bill he advanced out of committee, the vast majority of it has nothing to do with background checks. It is almost all about ways to ensure that a permanent record of ownership is kept and enforced.

As for whether background checks are even worth doing, well, they sound good, but the reality is that they're next to useless. According to the US DOJ, most criminals already get their guns through straw purchases from FFLs, not from private sales, meaning that background checks are already done on most crime guns. But since the straw buyer is almost always a friend or relative who is only doing it once, and not Bloomberg's imaginary professional gun runner, it's almost a foolproof way around the background check system. If/when the gun turns up on the criminal or at a crime scene, the purchaser just claims that it was stolen. Short of a confession, it's a crime that's impossible to prosecute. So how does expanding background checks to sales that are already not being used by most criminals going to stop them, when they already are failing to stop them on the type of sale they mostly do use?

As for the mentally ill, well, just look at the shooters at Virginia Tech, Tucson, and Denver. All three were clearly seriously disturbed, and had shown signs of that well before they purchased their guns. And yet each one passed multiple background checks. Not once was any of them caught by the system and refused a purchase. The problem, again, is not with whether a background check is run or not, but with the fact that the background check system does not, and realistically cannot, ever be more than a feel-good waste of time. The only people it catches are those who either don't know that they're prohibited but are, or are so stupid that they aren't aware that background checks are even done.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 03-24-2013, 7:11 PM
pMcW's Avatar
pMcW pMcW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Morgan Hill
Posts: 530
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HondaMasterTech View Post
You cannot legislate guns from the hands of criminals. You can only legislate rights from the law abiding. Involving law-abiding people and their rights when trying to legislate against crime is unacceptable. It is inconvenient when trying to increase public safety but that is not my problem.

Keep your public safety away from my rights.
^^ This!
__________________
Questions about new laws? Seek answers here first: Assault weapons law? | Ammunition law? | Magazine law?

M1A, Mini-14, M1 Carbine, Garand? Not banned.

Remove BB or similar device after AW reg? We don't know.
Quote:
(5) The department shall adopt regulations for the purpose of implementing this subdivision. These regulations are exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code). SB 880 | AB 1135
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 03-24-2013, 7:20 PM
swamp2 swamp2 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 308
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Although I am not decided on various subtleties associated with potential registration laws, I find it as annoying and as frustrating when vehement pro-gunners author pieces such as that in the OP. It is clearly filled with rampant speculation. Most of the article talks about gun show "loopholes" then it segues into a rant about how terrible it will be when PPTs will require proof of purchases and that will lead immediately to total confiscation. It is a bit tinfoil hat-ish...

I can appreciate and support rational concerns about various forms of UBC/UReg but this is not that.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 03-24-2013, 7:21 PM
Reelemup's Avatar
Reelemup Reelemup is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: San Jose
Posts: 1,414
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GayGuns View Post
Universal Background Checks: the Liberal Holy Grail
By Rick Averill

SNIPPET:
Feinstein's assault rifle ban has been removed from the Senate gun-control bill. While that is good news, it was recognized from the beginning as a bridge too far. What has survived, and may well become law, all in the spirit of bipartisan compromise, will actually be far worse.
I left Hungary 30 years ago...they kicked the communism out since ...but the signs are written on the wall here ...time to move...where?
Finestain should go and play with her grandchildren instead of wanting to control people.
__________________
Fish molester also pick shrooms
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 03-24-2013, 7:21 PM
AnthonyD1978's Avatar
AnthonyD1978 AnthonyD1978 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Orange County
Posts: 523
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ringchild View Post

how's this for a background check:
if you are free enough to walk into a gun shop with no cuffs on and no police escort, then you haven't been convicted of anything that would prohibit you from owning a gun.

pretty simple, eh?
Agree 100%. Every free person has the right to defend themselves and their family.
__________________
Pick up CCW: Called me on 5/20/14 to pick up on 5/22/14.
Submitted CCW renewal on 2/16/2016
Conditional approval for my renewal 3/10
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 03-24-2013, 7:25 PM
Reelemup's Avatar
Reelemup Reelemup is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: San Jose
Posts: 1,414
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnthonyD1978 View Post
Agree 100%. Every free person has the right to defend themselves and their family.
You have the right but when LE knocks on your door you don't have any anymore. Aren't we all free??? are we?
You are free inside your limitations that the LAW allows you.
__________________
Fish molester also pick shrooms

Last edited by Reelemup; 03-24-2013 at 7:27 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 03-24-2013, 7:32 PM
jwkincal's Avatar
jwkincal jwkincal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,323
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reelemup View Post
I left Hungary 30 years ago...they kicked the communism out since ...but the signs are written on the wall here ...time to move...where?
It's kinda chilling how frequently I'm hearing statements of this nature these days.
__________________
Get the hell off the beach. Get up and get moving. Follow Me! --Aubrey Newman, Col, 24th INF; at the Battle of Leyte

Certainty of death... small chance of success... what are we waiting for? --Gimli, son of Gloin; on attacking the vast army of Mordor

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
--Patrick Henry; Virginia, 1775
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 03-24-2013, 7:34 PM
AnthonyD1978's Avatar
AnthonyD1978 AnthonyD1978 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Orange County
Posts: 523
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reelemup View Post
You have the right but when LE knocks on your door you don't have any anymore. Aren't we all free??? are we?
You are free inside your limitations that the LAW allows you.
Sounds like you answered your own question. Free men don't allow their rights to be infringed.
__________________
Pick up CCW: Called me on 5/20/14 to pick up on 5/22/14.
Submitted CCW renewal on 2/16/2016
Conditional approval for my renewal 3/10
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 03-24-2013, 7:38 PM
covingtonhouse's Avatar
covingtonhouse covingtonhouse is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Monterey Bay
Posts: 1,641
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HondaMasterTech View Post
You cannot legislate guns from the hands of criminals. You can only legislate rights from the law abiding. Involving law-abiding people and their rights when trying to legislate against crime is unacceptable. It is inconvenient when trying to increase public safety but that is not my problem.

Keep your public safety away from my rights.
THIS^^^^^ The Governments job is not to keep everyone safe. Too many people believe the goverment is there to protect them from harm. It is not. You have a responsibility to keep yourself safe.
__________________
ante omnia armari
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 03-24-2013, 7:58 PM
Phil3's Avatar
Phil3 Phil3 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: San Ramon - CA
Posts: 2,047
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I read every post here, and one thing is obvious, there is a lot of confusion.

Perhaps with some of my questions, and answers from others, some of the cloudiness can be cleared.

1) As I understand it, INSTANT background checks are done on ALL buyers in gun transfers, with the possible exception of an INSTANT check an FFL you might be selling to. I believe this process is in place across the country. This seems to have little opposition, even if the effectiveness of it is questionable. Please correct if wrong.

2) The proposed Universal Background Check (UBC) pending in Congress, from what I hear, requires a PERMANENT record of the transaction be kept. True? If true, I do not know what the details of that transaction are, but one has to ask why any records are being kept. I know some states are required by law to destroy instant background check info within 24 hours. If information about the buyer, the seller, and the gun is part of the permanent records (what else could it be?), then that is defacto "registration".

3) The gun-show loophole from what I see is just a lie. Is it legally possible to transfer a weapon to another person, without going through a FFL and Instant background check? I am familiar with CA, but was not sure if this was a Federal law or not. ???

I am probably missing something here, and would welcome any clarity. In the mean time, I checked SB 374, and did find this within the body of the bill.

‘‘(ii) shall include a provision requiring a record
of transaction
of any transfer that occurred between
an unlicensed transferor and unlicensed transferee ac20
cordance with paragraph (1).’’.

There are so many "strike this", "add this", it is impossible to quickly discern the real meaning of this stuff, but the wording, if it means what is proposed, does seem to include record keeping. Senator Tom Coburn was then right to stand firm against this. I hear John McCain and Susan Collins may be looking to compromise. Not good.

Phil

Last edited by Phil3; 03-24-2013 at 8:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 03-24-2013, 8:14 PM
ferretwithacheeseknife ferretwithacheeseknife is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 508
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil3 View Post
3) The gun-show loophole from what I see is just a lie. Is it legally possible to transfer a weapon to another person, without going through a FFL and Instant background check? I am familiar with CA, but was not sure if this was a Federal law or not. ???

Phil

What record-keeping procedures should be followed when two private individuals want to engage in a firearms transaction?

When a transaction takes place between private (unlicensed) persons who reside in the same State, the Gun Control Act (GCA) does not require any record keeping. A private person may sell a firearm to another private individual in his or her State of residence and, similarly, a private individual may buy a firearm from another private person who resides in the same State.
It is not necessary under Federal law for a Federal firearms licensee (FFL) to assist in the sale or transfer when the buyer and seller are "same-State" residents. Of course, the transferor/seller may not knowingly transfer a firearm to someone who falls within any of the categories of prohibited
persons contained in the GCA. See 18 U.S. C. §§ 922(g) and (n). However, as stated above, there are no GCA-required records to be completed by either party to the transfer.

See: http://www.beararms.com/pdf/ftup.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 03-24-2013, 8:14 PM
penguinofsleep's Avatar
penguinofsleep penguinofsleep is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,953
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

skyking and everyone else arguing for something similar:

do all of you realize there is often and going to be a big difference between theory and practice? that even if all of these ideas aren't that bad or that harmful in theory (which i believe) they are in practice a waste of time and money at best?

guns are just another means to the extension of human thoughts, beliefs, and desires. even getting rid of them in their entirety will do nothing productive for us. that and why the simplicity of thought in thinking that just because the problems exists it can and must be solved or even addressable?
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 03-24-2013, 8:19 PM
QQQ's Avatar
QQQ QQQ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Chino Hills
Posts: 2,246
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ssaction View Post
Nope.

But what about anyone who is a prohibited person? People who have served their time for a felony & been released? For example, armed robbery.

How about anyone who has had a 5150, misdemeanor, or used drugs? There are probably quite a few of those that shouldn't own guns too.

If you want to lock up everyone who shouldn't have guns, that is going to be a big project. There are a lot of them walking free. They probably don't need to be locked up. Just not owning firearms.
If a person can't be trusted not to harm others, then that person should not be roaming the streets. End of story.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 03-24-2013, 9:35 PM
sakosf sakosf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 867
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
Wait, I thought your system didnt have a "record" , since it doesn't have a registry.

Without a record of the background check transaction, anyone could freely ignore the law with impunity. Why not just skip even calling NiCS? There's no documented proof a background check was done, so the government can't charge you with violating it. There's no denial, because the BG check didn't happen.

In order to bring charges you need documented proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the law was broken. As applied to Universal BG Checks, this requires a "record"- and such a record would need the name , date , time, and firearm information to be any good in court.Otherwise , all one need do to avoid prosecution is say they passed a BG check on a different gun.
Bingo !
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 03-24-2013, 9:37 PM
KON5T KON5T is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: PRK
Posts: 757
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyking13 View Post
Well worth considering! Someone with multiple speeding tickets, dui's, and reckless driving convictions shows that the person has judgement issues and perhaps should be prohibited from owning a firearm.

Perhaps we can even include those who overeat or insist on drinking huge sugary drinks as that shows poor judgement!


nice troll, well done.
__________________
it is not an easy thing to meet your maker (blade runner- 1982)
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 03-24-2013, 10:07 PM
timdps timdps is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,921
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hippies_Have_Guns_Too View Post
Perhaps we should counter by adding an amendment to the bill which also requires a universal background check for anyone and everyone who votes.
...and everyone who owns a computer or wants to buy a book...
__________________
"A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require, that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military supplies." - George Washington, 1790
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 03-24-2013, 10:12 PM
LuciusKang's Avatar
LuciusKang LuciusKang is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: LA County
Posts: 520
iTrader: 38 / 100%
Default

Have any if you considered the possibility that the UBC legislation actually had less to do with tracking and documenting firearms than with expanding the capacity of the federal government to invade your privacy.

Much of this legislation attempts to increase the scope of information contained within the background check system, i.e. medical records.

Under the guise of "tracking and preventing illegal guns" the feds have the perfect justification for requiring doctors to submit confidential and sensitive medical information to the state.

That, in my opinion, would be an even greater point of concern than simply recording my firearms transactions.

Sent from my SGH-T769 using Tapatalk 2
__________________
"Why are you still talking?"
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 03-24-2013, 10:33 PM
Patagonicus's Avatar
Patagonicus Patagonicus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: San Luis Obispo County
Posts: 1,386
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuciusKang View Post
Have any if you considered the possibility that the UBC legislation actually had less to do with tracking and documenting firearms than with expanding the capacity of the federal government to invade your privacy.

Much of this legislation attempts to increase the scope of information contained within the background check system, i.e. medical records.

Under the guise of "tracking and preventing illegal guns" the feds have the perfect justification for requiring doctors to submit confidential and sensitive medical information to the state.

That, in my opinion, would be an even greater point of concern than simply recording my firearms transactions.

Sent from my SGH-T769 using Tapatalk 2
EXACTLY. I have experience in the health care field, and I find it absurd that I can get into all kinds of trouble for releasing even the most basic parts of a patient's medical information without his or her consent, yet the government through the Patriot Act and NYSAFE laws can compel us to turn it over without much ado. These attempts against the 2nd Amendment are often accompanied by intrusions upon the 1st, 4th, and other Amendments as well.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 03-24-2013, 10:53 PM
aethyr aethyr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 103
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aklover_91 View Post
I'm still waiting on the answer to how a universal background check system is enforceable without one.

Unless the point of the law is just to 'make a statement', and not actually accomplish anything.

If it takes absolutely no effort to circumvent, it's just so much fluff so why bother wasting the money? It'd be better spent making sure NICS is actually up to date.
Maybe I'm a little dense, but why does a background check NEED a registry of gun owners? Wouldn't the background database itself merely be a "no-fly" list - people prohibited from owning a gun. So if they check your name against that list and you're not there, you're good to go?
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 03-24-2013, 11:39 PM
aklover_91 aklover_91 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 809
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aethyr View Post
Maybe I'm a little dense, but why does a background check NEED a registry of gun owners? Wouldn't the background database itself merely be a "no-fly" list - people prohibited from owning a gun. So if they check your name against that list and you're not there, you're good to go?
Unless you're keeping track of who has what guns, how do you prosecute someone for selling a gun outside of the 'system'?

If there's no real way to do that, it takes absolutely no effort to just not comply with the law.

If it takes zero effort to circumvent the law with almost no risk (provided you aren't selling to a cop), what's the point of even having it on the books?

Last edited by aklover_91; 03-24-2013 at 11:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 03-25-2013, 4:52 AM
victor1echo victor1echo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: A galaxy far, far away..
Posts: 1,113
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Hey skyqueen, troll you are. Know history. None of the proposed laws would have stopped any of the recent tradedies. Drugs are the problem.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 03-25-2013, 5:29 AM
glock7's Avatar
glock7 glock7 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: V.C.
Posts: 3,230
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jwkincal View Post
It's kinda chilling how frequently I'm hearing statements of this nature these days.
yeah people don't realize what can happen. Many years ago my family was was stationed in the Philippines during the Marcos regime and they instituted Martial Law. They took peoples firearms away. Checkpoints everywhere, you had to stop and be searched. Cars had to stop and be searched. My father wanted us to live off base so we could experience life outside the "base", when Martial law hit he moved our family into base housing. he felt we would be safer there. it can happen folks.
__________________
#blackriflesmatter
<7 years till retirement, can't wait to leave this state
California, where all of the good stuff is banned, registered, regulated or prohibited, yay.....
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 03-25-2013, 5:35 AM
glock7's Avatar
glock7 glock7 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: V.C.
Posts: 3,230
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by covingtonhouse View Post
THIS^^^^^ The Governments job is not to keep everyone safe. Too many people believe the goverment is there to protect them from harm. It is not. You have a responsibility to keep yourself safe.
amen....help yourself, do it yourself, save yourself and arm yourself. there are many laws and regs on the books as it is.
__________________
#blackriflesmatter
<7 years till retirement, can't wait to leave this state
California, where all of the good stuff is banned, registered, regulated or prohibited, yay.....
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 03-25-2013, 5:41 AM
glock7's Avatar
glock7 glock7 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: V.C.
Posts: 3,230
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ringchild View Post
wow...just, wow.
yeah i've seen that persons posts and i wonder if he's just an anti trolling the forum?
__________________
#blackriflesmatter
<7 years till retirement, can't wait to leave this state
California, where all of the good stuff is banned, registered, regulated or prohibited, yay.....
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 03-25-2013, 8:15 AM
ringchild ringchild is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: north bay/marin co.
Posts: 41
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glock7 View Post
yeah i've seen that persons posts and i wonder if he's just an anti trolling the forum?
i'd be lying if i said that thought didn't cross my mind.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 03-25-2013, 9:39 AM
Drew Eckhardt Drew Eckhardt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 634
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil3 View Post
I read every post here, and one thing is obvious, there is a lot of confusion.

Perhaps with some of my questions, and answers from others, some of the cloudiness can be cleared.

1) As I understand it, INSTANT background checks are done on ALL buyers in gun transfers, with the possible exception of an INSTANT check an FFL you might be selling to. I believe this process is in place across the country. This seems to have little opposition, even if the effectiveness of it is questionable. Please correct if wrong.
No. Disregarding NFA rules on machine guns, short barreled rifles, etc. at the federal level no background check is required on private transfers (the last time I checked it wasn't even possible - you needed a FFL for access to the system). Such transfers are allowed between non-licensees residing in the same state. Long guns can be mailed to the buyer. Federal law allows all guns to be shipped via common-carrier, although you're legally required to notify the carrier and this is against the FedEx and UPS tarrifs when neither party has an FFL so you can't.

This is the source of the so-called "gun show loophole" because no special rules exist for gun-shows. Selling guns there is legally the same as doing so at home, the range, internet, a stocking gun store, or FFL's kitchen table. Transferees between non-licensees don't need background checks. Transfers from a licensee to a non-licensee require a background check.

Legal unlicensed dealers who are exempt from the background check requirements do not exist except as a media fiction because engaging in the business of dealing guns without a license is a felony.

Selling your FAL as an unlicensed indivudual because you've decided you prefer .308 HKs or ARs is fine. Renting a gun show table and liquidating your grandfather's estate is stupid but legal. Planning on buying one lower which you'll build into a complete gun and sell for profit is not legal because that would be business.

Quote:
3) The gun-show loophole from what I see is just a lie. Is it legally possible to transfer a weapon to another person, without going through a FFL and Instant background check?
Yes.

Quote:
I am familiar with CA, but was not sure if this was a Federal law or not. ???
It's a California thing.

Quote:
There are so many "strike this", "add this", it is impossible to quickly discern the real meaning of this stuff, but the wording, if it means what is proposed, does seem to include record keeping. Senator Tom Coburn was then right to stand firm against this. I hear John McCain and Susan Collins may be looking to compromise. Not good.
Cornell has US law on-line. 18 USC 922 is likely most relevant. Reading it is informative, amusing, and sad.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

Last edited by Drew Eckhardt; 03-25-2013 at 5:19 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 03-25-2013, 9:59 AM
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 11,075
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyking13 View Post
Well worth considering! Someone with multiple speeding tickets, dui's, and reckless driving convictions shows that the person has judgement issues and perhaps should be prohibited from owning a firearm.

Perhaps we can even include those who overeat or insist on drinking huge sugary drinks as that shows poor judgement!
Well, perhaps we should also include short men as they seem to often have something to prove. BTW, I define "short men" as 5'10" or under ....

Does a person who shows poor judgement, but no violence, deserve to lose their right to self defense? I agree there's perhaps a concern, but should that be the result?

Regarding "universal background checks" - what public safety issue is served by requiring it of a person who already has a gun? We can't say it prevents the ability to commit violence with a gun, the person already has the ability.

While the discussion is of background checks having that without registration (from a 'gun control' perspective) makes no sense. Enforcement of background checks is simply not possible without some form of govenrment sponsored database. That subject is little discussed, I think it is important. How does one check compliance WITHOUT registration?

As simple scenario - I am hunting with my few years old Remington 700 and carrying a Ruger Redhawk. The Redhawk looks new. Both were bought privately, no "documented transaction" exists. How does LE check to ensure the guns were sold in accordance with the law? Or, is LE left to make some sort of "common sense" decision?

Supposing that in 1 Jan 14 we have a "Universal Background Check" in place. We have about 300 million guns in the US and many of them (legally so) off paper. Without registration, how would one know whether the gun was transfered legally? No record exists, LE checking compliance could depending on their point of view be lenient or difficult. In the end it may be "innocent until proven guilty" but why should the door be open to abuse? So registration must, I think, be part of checks.

If registration "going forward" is done, it will be only a matter of time before someone like Senator Schumer or Feinstein "discovers ....OMIGOD" that guns owned before 1 Jan 14 aren't registered. Based on sheer numbers we'll see for quite some time that legally owned but "pre-background" guns happen to used in crimes. At that point some form of mandatory self registration of previously owned guns will be proposed by the gun control folks.

With all the talk of "guns for self defense" we overlook one of the reasons for private ownership of guns - to allow citizens the collective ability to stand up to an oppressive government. Requiring government approval to buy and monitoring of where those guns are kept seems contrary to that purpose.

BTW, I realize that last observation doesn't go far in present discussions but if I read the history of the 2nd correctly it ought to be a consideration.

Last edited by dfletcher; 03-25-2013 at 10:52 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 03-25-2013, 10:36 AM
Milsurp Collector's Avatar
Milsurp Collector Milsurp Collector is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Free America
Posts: 4,439
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyking13 View Post

Background checks should be done on every...repeat, every...firearms transfer.
Why? If two guys who have been friends for years or decades want to sell guns to each other, a background check is a waste of time and money. If a grandfather wants to give his 18-year-old grandson a .22 rifle a background check is a waste of time and money. Do you really think grandpa wouldn't know whether or not his 18-year-old grandson was a convicted felon, was adjudicated mentally ill, or was an illegal immigrant? My next door neighbor is a cop. Performing a background check if I sell him a gun is a waste of time and money.

More than 99% of the over 165 million background checks performed since 1998 were approved. Assuming an average cost of $10 per background check, more than 1.6 billion dollars have been spent on background checks, more than 99% of which are approved. There are already way too many unnecessary background checks being done. You want there to be even more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyking13 View Post
If I didn't know that my middle aged kid had committed a crime sometime after he had left home and then I just gave him a firearm then I contributed to a crime.
If you are so out-of-touch with your own children that you didn't know they were convicted felons, why the hell are you giving them guns?

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyking13 View Post
My neighbor dies and his spouse wants to give me a revolver he had in the closet for the last 30 years...let's go to an FFL and do a transfer...we'll know if that weapon was stolen in a robbery 40 years ago and reported or had been used in crime that can now be solved.
Why go through all that trouble and expense if you are that nervous? In Oregon, any citizen can call an Oregon State Police toll-free number (1-800-432-5059) to check if a firearm has been reported stolen. The line is staffed 8am to 10pm every day except Thanksgiving and Christmas and the service is free.

How would you know that handgun was used in a crime, and how would knowing that "solve" the crime? Gun serial numbers aren't like automobile license plates. No one says "officer, I jotted down the serial number of the gun that the robber used before he ran away".

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyking13 View Post
The INTENT is to keep weapons out of the hands of prohibited people.
If that is the intent, it fails miserably. Even with 1.6 billion dollars wasted on mostly unnecessary background checks, prohibited people acquire guns without much difficulty. You don't reduce drunk driving by making millions of sober drivers take Breathalyzer tests.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyking13 View Post
If this is accomplished then we'll actually see a reduction in gun related crime and we'll be more secure in the right of LAW ABIDING citizens to keep and bear arms without infringement.
Are you serious? That isn't going to pacify pro-gun control people. They don't care about that. Firearm related homicides have been decreasing for the last five years in a row. Have you noticed pro-control people saying "well, since gun related crime has been decreasing, we don't need more gun control"? Really? Seriously? Have you been keeping up with the news the past couple of months?

Here's your word for the day:

Quote:
ap·pease [uh-peez]
verb (used with object), ap·peased, ap·peas·ing.

to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.


To appease is to make anxious overtures and often undue concessions to satisfy the demands of someone with a greed for power, territory, etc.: Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler at Munich.

Last edited by Milsurp Collector; 03-25-2013 at 10:47 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 03-25-2013, 10:55 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,109
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Does the UBC improve liberty?

For that matter, does the UBC actually keep guns out of the possession of the bad guys?

Is there actually anything that would be improved by the passage of the UBC?

My point is that there is no good that will come of the legislation. None. So why are the passing it?
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 03-25-2013, 10:57 AM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 8,325
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyking13 View Post
Well worth considering! Someone with multiple speeding tickets, dui's, and reckless driving convictions shows that the person has judgement issues and perhaps should be prohibited from owning a firearm.

Perhaps we can even include those who overeat or insist on drinking huge sugary drinks as that shows poor judgement!
I vote we include people with opinions I disagree with. Turn in all your guns now.
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: ‘I can’t wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!’
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 03-25-2013, 11:59 AM
Kyle1886's Avatar
Kyle1886 Kyle1886 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: N. San Diego Co.
Posts: 1,503
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

"...judgement issues and perhaps should be prohibited..." By whose or what criteria is someone's "judgement" decided? I seriously doubt in my 71 years, I've been 100% positive in all my "judgement" calls be it business or social. Some decicion's seemed very logical at the time.

Respectfully
Kyle
__________________
Take responsibility for your own actions!

Last edited by Kyle1886; 03-25-2013 at 12:01 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 03-25-2013, 1:05 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,710
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aethyr View Post
Maybe I'm a little dense, but why does a background check NEED a registry of gun owners? Wouldn't the background database itself merely be a "no-fly" list - people prohibited from owning a gun. So if they check your name against that list and you're not there, you're good to go?
Government registries serve three purposes:

1. Some history of "title", ownership and changes. (personal info)
2. A record for purposes of confiscation. (policy)
3. A record for tax collection purposes. (revenue enhancement)

These bills we keep seeing are outright targetted at #1 and #2. A run-around around HIPPA and a desire to register everyone.

However, #3 is the one they sneak in later by passing a separate bill requiring a tax on each firearm owned.

They really are reaching and trying to grab the whole shebang in one fell swoop.

...and the trolls here are quite pathetic.

=8-)
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 03-25-2013, 3:44 PM
ferretwithacheeseknife ferretwithacheeseknife is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 508
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glock7 View Post
yeah i've seen that persons posts and i wonder if he's just an anti trolling the forum?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringchild View Post
i'd be lying if i said that thought didn't cross my mind.
Will you guys please lighten up? Can we have a reasonable discussion based on logic without someone's motives being questioned? Or does it have to be a shouting match? He has a point and so do you.

Your point is that background checks will not keep criminals from acquiring guns. That is true with 300 million guns more or less a criminal can get hold of one, especially since to a criminal the law is not an obstacle.

Universal background checks, will however, make it more difficult for a criminal to get hold of a gun. As someone pointed out on this thread 99% of all background checks are approved. But that still leaves 1% unapproved which amounts to over 1,000,000. That is Skyking's point. Plus I seem to recall a thread on here where somebody's girlfriend tried to DROS a gun and was denied because she had five felonies. Do you want someone with five felonies and doesn't even know it walking around with a gun? That is a valid point.

Likewise there are posters on this thread who say if you have served your sentence, you have paid your debt to society so shouldn't you be able to own a gun especially when the felony is a non-violent one. That too is a valid point.

Finally, there are those who say depending on how the records are kept, universal background checks could be the first step towards confiscation. That too is a valid point.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 03-25-2013, 4:05 PM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ferretwithacheeseknife View Post
Will you guys please lighten up? Can we have a reasonable discussion based on logic without someone's motives being questioned? Or does it have to be a shouting match? He has a point and so do you..
No he does not, for in order to take a stance one must first be able to factually defend it. More on that later.




Quote:
Originally Posted by ferretwithacheeseknife View Post

Your point is that background checks will not keep criminals from acquiring guns. That is true with 300 million guns more or less a criminal can get hold of one, especially since to a criminal the law is not an obstacle.
.
This....


Quote:
Originally Posted by ferretwithacheeseknife View Post
Universal background checks, will however, make it more difficult for a criminal to get hold of a gun. As someone pointed out on this thread 99% of all background checks are approved. But that still leaves 1% unapproved which amounts to over 1,000,000. That is Skyking's point. Plus I seem to recall a thread on here where somebody's girlfriend tried to DROS a gun and was denied because she had five felonies. Do you want someone with five felonies and doesn't even know it walking around with a gun? That is a valid point.

......contradicts this.Either the 300 million guns in circulation renders any attempt at proactive control of transfers moot, OR we can "stop guns from getting to bad guys" by passing universal background checks.

Looking at the facts, the crime rates of states like California which already have "Universal Background Checks" are not substantially different from comparable states without such laws. At best, this measure is an exercise in marketing. That makes it an epic waste of taxpayer funds at face value.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ferretwithacheeseknife View Post
Likewise there are posters on this thread who say if you have served your sentence, you have paid your debt to society so shouldn't you be able to own a gun especially when the felony is a non-violent one. That too is a valid point.

Finally, there are those who say depending on how the records are kept, universal background checks could be the first step towards confiscation. That too is a valid point.
Its more then a "valid point" , its historical fact.
__________________
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be.
The more subsidies you have, the less self reliant people will be.
-Lao-Tzu, Tau Te Ching. 479 BCE

The 1911 may have been in wars for 100 years, but Masetro Bartolomeo Beretta was arming the world 400 years before John Browning was ever a wet dream.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 03-25-2013, 4:27 PM
sakosf sakosf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 867
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

The goal of our opponents, as most of us already know, is the removal of all firearms from the civilian population. Their thinking is "guns don't belong in a civilized society". Their likely strategy is to take one step at a time to reach the goal and use tragedy to take a large step. You really can't strike a grand bargain with these people.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 03-25-2013, 4:38 PM
ferretwithacheeseknife ferretwithacheeseknife is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 508
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
No he does not, for in order to take a stance one must first be able to factually defend it. More on that later.

This....

......contradicts this.Either the 300 million guns in circulation renders any attempt at proactive control of transfers moot, OR we can "stop guns from getting to bad guys" by passing universal background checks.

Looking at the facts, the crime rates of states like California which already have "Universal Background Checks" are not substantially different from comparable states without such laws. At best, this measure is an exercise in marketing. That makes it an epic waste of taxpayer funds at face value.

Its more then a "valid point" , its historical fact.
I believe that you are confusing correlation with causation. While that may establish that universal background checks are not the be all end all of crime deterrence it is impossible to conclude based on the information you cite that the law has had no effect.

Please show me (no sarcasm inteded) where background checks have led to confiscation in the US.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 03-25-2013, 4:41 PM
HondaMasterTech's Avatar
HondaMasterTech HondaMasterTech is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,338
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sakosf View Post
The goal of our opponents, as most of us already know, is the removal of all firearms from the civilian population. Their thinking is "guns don't belong in a civilized society". Their likely strategy is to take one step at a time to reach the goal and use tragedy to take a large step. You really can't strike a grand bargain with these people.
See my signature for an admission by Dianne Fienstein that she wants complete confiscation. Make no mistake, she understands the effectiveness of incrimentalism. My hope is that, some day voters will realize this fact.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
(Please skip the lame "two weeks" replies.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ford8N View Post
If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. Senator Dianne Feinstein, CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995
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 9:20 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, 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 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.