Don't we already have background checks?

Over the years I have bought and sold many weapons, both thru a LGS and FTF, and i am quite sure that the majority have been sold and resold many times since. Will I be considered a bad guy if they track the gun back to me only to find that I sold it and only have a "poor boy" type hand written bill of sale for most and the buyers have long since departed this area or this world and/or can not be located. Inacting a new law today, IMO, will have no effect on the future FTF private transfers. I do have very good C&R purchase/sales records though some private sales and purchases have no ser # and/or manufacturer but a picture.

As if we weren't already sick enough, consider this: would universal background checks have stopped any of the recent spate of mass shootings?

Columbine: maybe. Their straw buyers could've passed a background check, but wanted to avoid "paperwork."
Virginia Tech: no, he passed a background check
Tucson: no, he passed a background check
Aurora: no, he passed a background check
Sandy Hook: no, the guns belonged to his mother, who passed a background check

So, if universal background checks would not have prevented these incidents, why is it so important to implement them? Because they're playing politics, not actually trying to solve a problem.

Well there is that law in the Obamy healthcare package that prohibits the government from gathering information on gun owners. I dont know what effect that would have and they probably will ignore it if it would have an effect on their database plans. Just read about it in the news so not that up to date on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EeyoreCC

As if we weren't already sick enough, consider this: would universal background checks have stopped any of the recent spate of mass shootings?

Columbine: maybe. Their straw buyers could've passed a background check, but wanted to avoid "paperwork."
Virginia Tech: no, he passed a background check
Tucson: no, he passed a background check
Aurora: no, he passed a background check
Sandy Hook: no, the guns belonged to his mother, who passed a background check

So, if universal background checks would not have prevented these incidents, why is it so important to implement them? Because they're playing politics, not actually trying to solve a problem.

---

That's not a good measure of the efficacy of background checks, because we have no idea how many people who shouldn't have guns are turned away because of a background check, or don't even try. Adam Lanza took a bus to the mall and tried to buy a rifle at Dick's and was turned away, and that may have been why he was walking around with his brother's ID. It's unlikely that anyone but his mother would have trusted that kid with a firearm, and apparently he didn't always have access to her firearms or else he wouldn't have been going to Dick's. I don't have all the details on what happened that morning when he finally got the guns.

The problem as I see it is not background checks in general, but the way those background checks could be used when they're being implemented by people who really don't think any private citizens should be armed. One way to solve it is to say sure, let's have background checks, but be very specific as to what those background checks involve and what the criteria are for passing them. A US citizen, no violent or felony convictions and no outstanding warrants- what else would they want to check? The psychiatric part, that's a tough one, those are medical records and they're private. You can have a guy buying a gun who just walked out of a psychiatrist's office saying he hears voices that tell him to kill, and there's no way to know it and not a thing you can do about it.

What "they" are screaming about is there is no uniform background checking nationwide. "They" know that such checks are a violation of the 2nd amendment and will not stop evil people doing evil things with firearms. They continually bring up and rant on with "this or that" which we purpose will "fix it and keep everyone safe" its just part of their brainwashing the public campaign. Sadly such tactics have been effective in the past concerning so called "gun control" laws.

The need for more control and monitoring of mentally ill individuals is where our focus should be.

How do we keep someone like Lanzas mom from having guns that are accessible to her sick son? Should there be a requirement to track mentally ill people, create a database, and bounce that database against the NCIS check when a FFL calls it in, cross referencing address? What's the definition of mentally ill? Taking "x, y or z meds"? Diagnosed with "x, y or z illness"? How do we not infringe on the stable individual's rights, if they so happen to live with someone on the list?

Food for thought - if a relative is paroled and comes to stay with you, in all likelihood you will either need to get rid of your guns or lock them up and prove to the parole officer that the parolee can't get to them. Thus, by electing to take in your relative, you are giving up some of your rights, but you haven't committed any crime yourself.

I would not sell F2F without proper ID including the buyers OL and CC Permit. I work gunshows promoting cowboy action shooting and the dealers I see are following the rules but regularly I see two guys meet in the aisle, one a buyer and one a seller. The conversation is what have you got and how much. If a price is agreed upon the two parties go their separate ways with no idea who the other one is. I have a problem with this type of sale. I believe, in today's climate especially, you need to know for sure, with documentation, where that firearm went when it left your possession.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TX expat

Some states have set their weapons permits to function as an NICS check, so they may not "dial in" in the same manner as other states, but the end result is every firearm that is purchased through an FFL has a verification process that clears the sale of weapons.

---

It's not done by the state per se, it's approved, etc by the ATF for it to be "acceptable" in that state. The state cannot tell FFL's dealers nor give them approval to accept a CCL in place of a NICS checks.

Quote:

---

Biden want to address the "gun show loophole" which is a fallacy in the first place. There is no gun show loophole. Every FFL at every gun show abides by the same laws as they do when they are sitting behind the counter of their shop. No difference. You buy a gun from an FFL at a gun show and they will run the same NICS check on you as if you were in their shop. What Biden wants to do is make every sale between two private individuals take place through an FFL, so the federal government can 'track' all these "loophole" sales. It's important for everyone to fully understand what they are saying. There is no "loophole". They want to put a federal layer of oversight into private party sales.

---

Yep... spot on . All sales going thru FFL"s, make it easier to start setting up "registration " of all firearms at some point.

Can anyone post what "Universal Background Checks" are supposed to mean? From the way it's being presented, it sounds like it's a different kind of check beyond NICS. I can see the creation of a new check system that requires more work, then staffing the agency with less than the number of people required to complete the work, or defunding it to the point where background checks can't be completed...

Am I the only one thinking like this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by livewire

Can anyone post what "Universal Background Checks" are supposed to mean? From the way it's being presented, it sounds like it's a different kind of check beyond NICS. I can see the creation of a new check system that requires more work, then staffing the agency with less than the number of people required to complete the work, or defunding it to the point where background checks can't be completed...

Am I the only one thinking like this?

---

Oh you can be sure there'll be more federal layers attached to the NICS with his new mandates. I'm sure there'll be a solid tracking system for all firearms, felonies for those who don't hop in line quickly and probably federal "taxes" on the sales too.

Like passing a law will suddenly cause the gang bangers selling stolen guns out of the trunk of their stolen car to stop and run the background check app on their stolen iPhone before they grab the cash. Do these idiots have any sense of the real world?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BugDude

Like passing a law will suddenly cause the gang bangers selling stolen guns out of the trunk of their stolen car to stop and run the background check app on their stolen iPhone before they grab the cash. Do these idiots have any sense of the real world?

---

Don't confuse the excuse with the reason now...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

My wife and I were talking today and we THINK a universal background check they are referring to may be a bit different than the standard NICS check. I believe that some states don't report all offensives to the NICS database. When someone apply for a concealed weapons permit, I believe that the background checks are far more extensive than the standard NICS reporting. This is why many states allow 60 to 90 day's or more to go through the process.

My suspicion is that for the purchase of a firearm, we are heading for a "universal background check" similar to that of a concealed weapons permit.

I'm more concerned with mag capacity limits, ammo purchase limits, and having to request approval to buy ammo (which will be tracked by big brother). I also suspect the government will try to become the sole supplier of ammo to the public. I may be wrong.

Just came back from the River, to honor our great (fake) leader I thru ALL my guns in the river, sorry to see them go But I sure want to be one of the good (sic) guys. I will still frequent the boards cause I like the porn and humor............