What is the argument against PPT requiring BG check in other states?

[rugershooter]

The fact that your name shows up on a 4473 from 3-5-10-20 years ago is not sufficient for a search warrant, much less for a confiscation visit.
It would perhaps be enough for a formal contact if the gun were used in a serious crime.

And don't you doubt for one minute that "Joe on the 4473" isn't going to roll like a bowling ball to identify the guy that he sold the gun in question to in order to save his own skin.
"Ya, I sold that to Rugershooter a couple of years ago. Nice fellow, seemed straight as an arrow, about 6 foot 2, short hair, drove an Astro Van."

Why are gun owners generally opposed to registration? Confiscation, right?
If the federal government wanted to confiscate, they can use the 4473 on file with the FFL. Isn't that how the government works? They just change the laws when the law gets in the way of what they want to do.

[IVC]

Why are gun owners generally opposed to registration? Confiscation, right?
If the federal government wanted to confiscate, they can use the 4473 on file with the FFL. Isn't that how the government works? They just change the laws when the law gets in the way of what they want to do.

The current system cannot be used for confiscation. The information is too distributed and too inaccurate due to private sales without FFLs.

When in doubt, just follow what the gun grabbers want to do the most, then ask yourself "why?"

[rugershooter]

The current system cannot be used for confiscation. The information is too distributed and too inaccurate due to private sales without FFLs.

When in doubt, just follow what the gun grabbers want to do the most, then ask yourself "why?"

The law can be changed as they see fit.

When in doubt, just follow what the gun grabbers want to do the most, then ask yourself "why?"

Ok, so why is there such a push for mandatory background checks for all sales?
With over 300 million guns in the country, we already know that it's easy to get a gun without going through a background check by illegal sales or stealing them. Mandatory background checks don't stop people from getting guns. So what other possible reason is there for mandatory background checks?

[Deedle]

Using just that information alone, government has enough information to know who to investigate for confiscation

A couple points. First, they could investigate away but a stale 4473 isn't worth much legally speaking and it's simply not practical to do literally hundreds of millions of time consuming investigations.

Second, the 4473 is not a background check, it's a firearms transaction record. A background check is NOT a registration scheme AT ALL. This is the topic, and it's a mistake in logic to change the subject 80% of the way through.


Executive summary: The NICS background check is not a firearms registration scheme.

[Deedle]

Ok, so why is there such a push for mandatory background checks for all sales?

Politicians want divisive issues they can harvest for votes.

[IVC]

Ok, so why is there such a push for mandatory background checks for all sales?
With over 300 million guns in the country, we already know that it's easy to get a gun without going through a background check by illegal sales or stealing them. Mandatory background checks don't stop people from getting guns. So what other possible reason is there for mandatory background checks?

The push is not really for "background checks." The push is for UNIVERSAL REGISTRATION.

There are many different mechanisms that can implement background checks without registration, yet the left won't have any of that. We know that they are after registration and that "background checks" are just a way to get there.

[Stevehazard]

Well one of my arguments against it would be the extreme logistics, time, travel, cost, burdens it places on the seller, buyer, and involved FFL here in this state particularly coupled with the fact that we have a wait period.

Here is the real example I'll use.

I found a rifle I personally want at a price I'm interested in. Seller is two hours away. However the FFL the seller is familiar and close to is 30 mins away from him which also happens to be another 30 mins away from me. Because the distance is far and FFL's have specific hours, traffic problems have to be accounted for etc. A day and time needs to be scheduled that I can get to the FFL, the seller can get to the FFL, the FFL is open and available to do a PPT, is a bit challenging to say the least. After all that criteria is met I now have to pay for the check and the transfer fee. The FFL now has to take the time to do the PPT and store my property for a minimum of 10 days. I now take the 2 and half hour drive home.... WITHOUT my property. Then some time after 10 days later I have to find the time to go back to the FFL and retrieve my property and interrupt the FFL from their normal business to hand me my property they never wanted to store or deal with in the first place.

This is not a minor inconvenience on people. No involved entity wants to jump though these ridiculous hoops. The seller would rather not, I as the buyer would rather not, and the FFL certainly does not want to do this. Financially this is a loser for all parties as well. The seller has to accept a lesser value for his property because of the additional hassle he knows the buyer will most likely be making. I as the buyer don't get as good of a deal as I would like because of all the time, gas money, fee's I have to consider overhead on the purchase. And even though the FFL was quick they certainly are not making any money off the $10 they received to pay an employee for 15 mins and store something for over a week.

I wouldn't even be surprised if it's possible to argue that 7 extra hours of people on the road was a greater public safety concern then people acquiring firearms though PPT without a background check.