It seems to me that a couple of years ago the NRA and many gun owners were proposing a universal backgound checks bill and law that would have closed the so called and over hyped gun show looophole but not messed with gun shows and such by giving EVERY ONE access to the NICS system or with a one time NICS check that provided all qualified gun buyers with a picture ID card that allowed them to make any gun purchase from then on without haveing to wait etc. And no paper trail on the gun or purchase.

Would you support one of these ideas? If not whay not and what system WOULD you support that would weed out those who should not be able to make a gun purchase from doing so? How, in your mind, can this be done - or can it- without infringing on our rights or screwing up gun shows etc?

What part of "No" don't you guys understand?

Nope. I feel everything is in place.

As long as political motives keep unlawful practices from being enforced, I'm not about supporting anything that is going to be intruding on my "free exercise thereof"....

Its time for "common sense" enforcement.

We cannot give the antiguncocksuckkers anything they would consider a victory. It will only encourage them to try and pass more crap on the road to their dream of law abiding citizens not being allowed to own any type of gun.

safariman, in the Harkin Amendment there was a provision for creating a federal internet portal where a person could do a background check only on themselves and print off a 30 day permit, complete with serial number and ability to verify the permit is valid via phone. No records are kept or communicated about who prints off their background check permits.

I would support that as a purely voluntary method of background check - especially if it could be used to allow a person to buy firearms from private sellers out of state. As a seller, if you're selling to somebody you don't know - simply ask them to do the free background check on themselves and you can validate it. No records kept of firearms transfer, no permanent records kept that the person got the background check, and seller can be sure the buyer isn't a prohibited person.

I'm NOT in favor of the federal government mandating ANY requirements for background checks between private sellers in the same state. They simply have no authority to legislate that.

Cal, it sure would be nice if the proposed language just said so in Plain English, would it not?
I dropped a note on Volokh and Kopel, hopefully there will be an analysis forthcoming from those with a proven clue.
But color me suss pisch ee yusss.

I've sometimes considered that backgrouns checks on everyone might work.

Everyone would be checked when they renew their license. Every driver's license in the country would simply say "Eligible to possess firearm?" and then yes/no. Everyone would have that line on their license, regardless of whether or not they wanted to own a gun.

44henry

If a felon/psycho. can't be trusted with a gun in public they shouldn't be allowed out of prison/psych ward, period.

Back ground checks are nothing more than an acknowledgment of the failures of the prison system and psych. industry to rehab. their wards.

44henry, I don't like that as a mandatory field - too prejudicial against prohibited persons. Remember that you have to provide a DL every time you apply for a job. But I've thought it's not a bad option as an optional field. If a person chooses to have it printed on their DL, let them. Since it's state validated and is issued every 5 years or less than it would count as a background check within the state.

Just enforce existing laws. Sweep the inner cities for gang bangers carrying illegal guns and do something about them instead of the revolving door. There are many thousands of teenage gang members packing illegal guns. Start locking them up for their crimes and see how fast gun crime decreases.

NO! We have Form 4473. The "gun show loophole" is overblown bullshit.

I do agree with you on that SBTCO.

44henry

We don't have form 4473 for private sales.

It's the people not the tool used. Remember about 13% of the population commit roughly half the murders in this country.

Facing the truth isn't always easy.

No gun law including the GCA of 1968 have reduced crime or murder.

Wake the [bleep] up people

Maybe it's late at night and I'm just grumpy from all the bad news lately, but how many wacko's end up with their gun of choice from a purchase? Or, like Sandy Hook, get them from someone else, or steal them? Criminals don't buy from a dealer and do background checks, and yet they get a gun if they want one. Any new gun law short of the full blown deal isn't going to do squat to anyone (but us).

Correct, and we can't/don't/won't ever be able to effectively control the private sale of firearms, or anything else for that matter.

I never proposed controlling it.. I pointed to a voluntary self background check that seller and buyer could use if the seller was worried about the buyer. Right now if a seller has a doubt about a buyer, the only thing he can do is to refuse to sell. Here's a way for the buyer to reassure the seller with no gov't involvement or records.

ESPECIALLY if it would legally allow a guy to buy at least rifles/shotguns across state lines from a private seller.

There's that "allow" word.

I've also thought about that. Some form of check on everybody and not just those who want to buy guns. It could be indicated on the drivers license and be checked every time you renew the license. The government would not know who was actually buying a gun and a seller could easily check before selling.

How about "American Citizen? Yes? Ok, it's your right, you can buy and posess whatever you want"

Good enough for me. It's not like you need a background check to excercise any other rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Yeah, OK, but that's not realistic. The supreme court has already upheld the ability to make restrictions on ownership. I have no problem with people who have committed violent crimes from being restricted from owning guns.

Not just no but hell no.

I could support none.

If you believe what we have now works to prevent crime(I don't) then a complete registry and no "loop holes" should be what you believe we should have.

I fail to see any gray area. Either you think gun laws work or you don't. I'm in the don't category and can only support less laws not more.

Ok, but have those convicted of violent crimes have other rights suspended by COTUS? Why is the 2nd special? If you want to redefine "shall not be infringed," then you need an amendment IMO. SCOTUS has been wrong before, they are only people in politically appointed positions. Just because law is defacto, doesn't make it right. What happens when the definition of "violent criminal" is defined by defacto law as something considered innocuous today? Was Randy Weaver a "violent criminal?". A slippery slope indeed.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed"

Nuf said.

Like I said, not realistic.

I thought about that last night after we talked back and forth. There are some good things in what you posted and not a lot bad. I could go for getting some things for a change. The problem is the bad and the potential for worse even in the stuff you posted about it which neither one of us was able to fully check/vet. What we need is more common sense government. Our politicians are addicted to big government and passing needless laws that take an attorney to interpret. "We had to pass it to find out what was in it." Sounds a whole lot like "In order to save the village we had to destroy it,".

I am convinced that despite nice, juicy carrots in front of us, we need to hold the line and when the time is right, push back hard. Our "leaders" need to prove that laws will work before passing them and simplify them so we can all understand them. There are several huge problems in this country. Guns and poorly reasoned, non-working controls thereof are only a subset of the whole, part of which I just described. Our Justice System itself is [bleep] up badly. You shoot some guy who is obviously trying to do your or yours harm or even in the commission of some other crime, like theft, and it should be cut and dried that there is nothing done. I'm sick and tired of reading, "no charges were filed". Wtf? As if some should be? George Zimmerman is a perfect example. It should not break a person defending against such nonsense either...so the civil system needs reformed badly too.

No offense intended to the lawyers here, but there is no incentive for the lawyers, who themselves make up most of the government in this country, to reform things. The more and more confusing the laws, the more money in their pockets. We simply have to quit letting the addiction to legislation run (ruin actually) this country and we have to do something about the proliferation of bs that has already occurred.

The sunsetting of the AWB was a great start. How about a revisitation of the 1968 GCA? A hard look at it such as Prof. Kleck did in his landmark book, is needed. More Guns Equal Less Crime should be a rallying cry as opposed to just a book title. What about the NFA? What good does it do? We know that our borders need to be secured, yet we allow these asssclowns we call leaders to foist weak-dicks like Romney and McClown on us and they don't even get to first base because nobody is interested in their tired, sadasssed shixt. We already know if they were going to do something it would have already been done.

What we're gonna do is [bleep] around until the whole thing implodes. Our country is fixable and easily so, but we simply have to quit listening to dickweasels who are selling us out and making money doing so.

I agree that it is unrealistic in today's views, but I still think its right, and I will still base my support of politicians and my letters to them based on this interpretation of COTUS. As far as realism today, neither Washington nor Jefferson could ever get elected today, but that doesn't mean it's right.

We can talk compromise when democrat voters have to show ID. When the border is properly secure. When obama explains why he was in pakistan in 1984. When Eric Holder comes clean on fast and furious, and when the truth is known about bengazi. Until then, they can lick my nuts

Who is being "not realistic?"
Worked for over 150 years, would work for 150 more if left alone, and people didn't swallow the lies and propaganda fed em.

Randy Weaver was a victim of violent criminals who are members of a criminal organization.

Lon Horiuchi should have stood trial.

I agree, how it is and what is right are not the same. I believe we will have some form of background checks no matter what we think or do about it. If we have to have them, I want them to be for everyone, not just gun owners. Not done at time of purchase. The government doesn't need to know what type or how many guns anyone has. If they are OK to have a gun, then that is all the government needs to know.

Something as simple as a check on everyones drivers license could work. The check could be done each time you renew it and there would be no paperwork needed when buying or selling a gun. Since the check would be done on everyone, the government would just assume everyone is armed.

OK, go get background checks abolished. Tell me, how you going to do it?

Some truth along with, attitude adjustment would make a good start.
Direction we're headed? Not a chance.

I mean no offense here so please don't take it that way.

What you are saying is true if it weren't for one piece of flawed reasoning in your statement. I'm fairly involved in our local public schools. For years I've heard locals say, "it's just a matter of time before they consolidate it,", meaning the local school district. They have no clue. They've been saying it for years and guess what, it ain't consolidated.

The same goes for your statement about background checks. We don't have them now for private sales at the Fed level and we don't EVER have to have them if we stand fast. The biggest possibility right now is people who probably mean well, dangling a big enough and juicy enough carrot in front of us that we go for something benign. The trouble with that is more confusion and the possibility of the slippery slope plus the fact that nothing has worked as of yet. Einstein said that one definition of insanity is continuing to try something over and over and over that has failed in the past. There must be some addendum to that logic talking about continuing to up the ante on things that already do not work. We need to go in the different direction and the first object in turning around is to stop going in the direction we currently are going.

No new gun control. No exceptions.

What do you want to know? Repeal the Brady Bill and the current NICS system that was added to it. I mean, if you're serious, that's the nuts and bolts of how it happens.

I don't disagree in a pragmatic way, but I do in a principled one. I refuse the argument, since it is a cave in to the left's argument that it is a tool problem, not an action one. I choose to stand my ground, and try to change the argument to a more reasonable one, rather than to submit to the argument that a special class of people is required to own firearms.

We're not that far apart honestly, I'm just clinging to the intent of COTUS, and not giving credence to the fallacy that 7 lbs of steel and or aluminum creates a crime. It's the 9lbs of grey matter, or lack thereof.

There is no difference between principle and pragmatism in the end. There is only what gets done and how right or wrong it is. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

That's the problem. It is the direction we are headed. If we are not in on the solution, we will bear the brunt of it. Background checks aren't going away, but they can be moved from the point of gun purchase. No one needs to know when and how often you buy a gun. They certianly don't need to know how many and what type guns you have.

While it is possible to repeal the Brady Bill or get rid of any NICS tpe checks, it is not probable. Not even remotely. Background checks aren't going away. They can however be done in a way that doesn't even identify anyone as a gun owner.

Maybe the first question is...

If we roll back the GCA and Brady Bill and the rest and remove background checks totally, will violent crime rates go back to that of the 60's or earlier? Or will they skyrocket?

I would expect things to stay the same, unless we also got rid of individual state and city laws as well. Then things might get better. I don't think a background check keeps one single gun out of the hands of criminals if they want one.

Right there is your problem. A defeatist attitude. We actually are on the march forward after a long time of backwards movement and stagnation. You have people now who understand what the 2nd Amendment means and are willing to fight politically for it. The first thing you have to do is change your mindset.

I am not a huge fan of Heller, but it was a gigantic step forward with the acknowledgement of the SCOTUS that the 2nd is indeed an individual right. You also have the proliferation of CCW laws. While I am conflicted about those laws, thinking the 2nd already gives us the right to bear arms, they have certainly made the bearing of those arms much more common.

Specifically which ones? Most southern and western states with exceptions as to those that border the Pacific and Colorado, don't have laws that mirror the GCA. For instance, you do away with it and there is no background check or even requirement to go through an FFL to buy a gun in Kansas or Oklahoma.

And see, I am completely against CCW laws. I think we already have the right to carry without permission from the government. I refuse to get a permit that allows me to bear arms. Strange, huh?

Was mostly thinking of CA, IL, NY, NJ, and the like.

But you're ok with a govt background check for same?

I'm confused.

I never said I was OK or wanted it. I believe it is here to stay in some form or another. If we have to have it, I want it in a form that does not identify gun owners. Just those who can and who can't. Not those who have.

Fair enough, but instead of accept it,why not oppose completely. Keep your conscious clean, and at the same time help move the argument away from the tools and more toward the people and actions? We all k ow that guns don't kill people, so why even give them an inch?

I have enough to worry about with my own state. Folks in those places have to get their own houses in order. If I thought I could help, I would.

The only form of background check I am willing to discuss or be willing to swallow is one that may not please anyone but should be tolerable to most. Remember, we currently have background checks everytime we buy from a dealer and it identifies us a gun owner and can be used to identify what type of gun we bought.

What I envision is a system that generically identifies each and every citizen as either yes or no. Not based on buying or selling a gun. A dealer would just have to check that and then give you the gun. No record other than his personal records. A private seller would/could check it if they wanted to. No record of sale or purchase. Don't want to check, then don't. No one would know.

Of course, it opens a much larger can of worms of what makes someone eligible or not. I think those restricted should be a very narrow and select few. Many now are trying to add far to many to that list.

In order to combat your enemy you must identify his motives. You must know what he seeks. In this case the actual goal is not safety and protection of the American people, it is elimination of freedom, not just to bear arms, but most freedom in general. The high-up anti's are making war on you, your children and your very way of life. You must come to grips with these facts as indicated in the very words the anti's have spoken. Once you do that, you'll see that if you wish to speak of pragmatism, it isn't what you are doing here. The anti's want means to prosecute legal gun owners for minutia and ways to limit guns to themselves and those in their employ. They do not care about pure safety measures.

In most inner cities like Chicago the gangs sell drugs & have constant turf wars. Many of the politicians, a few LEO's, & even a judge or two is on the take. As long as mega-millions can be made selling drugs there will be no crack down. Guns are merely a tool these gangs use to enforce their turf. If guns were not available it would be machetes & knives. Stop the drugs & gun violence will drop significantly. Of course, it will not happen so the media & liberal politicians will continue to blame guns.

The gun show thing must be a regional issue. went to a show couple yars ago with my pard here in CT. He ended up buying a rifle and his info was called in to the state like it always is to get a "number" for 4473. He also has a State carriers permit.

Again, legal folks do things legally.....

Anyone who knows they can't pass a background check won't try.

You can pass a background check today, buy a rifle, etc today and next year fall off the deep end become "irrational".

If .Gov wants to make an impact, it has to be regarding the black market availability which is reallistically on every street corner.

Mental health is a real issue, but how do you govern that in any form of gun laws?

A guy goes out and buys an AR15 or similar. Loves to shoot, goes out to the range every weekend and has a great time.

Same guy, couple years later takes the wrong advice from his broker and looses EVERYTHING. Takes same AR and shoots up his brokers place of biz.....we all heard this before.

Background checks don't fix this issue. It's a terrible crime, but neither society or laws can fix everything.

The only reason this got as far as it did is the bandwagon jumping on the emotions of Newtown.

State of CT is already [bleep].

I will entertain talk of UBC's when the 15' fence is complete with 50 cals every 200 yds on the Southern Border.

When all " citizens " on gov't assistance, OF ANY KIND, submit to a monthly drug test. Failure would entail losing all benefits, forever.

When all illegals and muzzies are rounded up and deported.

When sterilization shots are mandatory for anyone picking up their first welfare check.

When....well you get the picture.

I like this guy.