Defensive Carry banner

Universal & "Expanded" Background Checks: Scariest Bill

3K views 41 replies 28 participants last post by  Cheesewiz 
#1 ·
I'm telling you, the more and more I think about the idea of universal and expanded background checks, the more it scares me.

Between the fact that a poster here who was an FFL holder discovering that the powers-at-be hold NCIC checks longer than the stated, "3 months" and the fact that this is being pushed as the "compromise" by the Democrats (or will be)..this is the one to watch out for. The AWB was just a distraction for this bill.

They have will everything they want. Who and who isn't a gun owner, expanded checks will bring the type of firearms owned, and previous 4473s will be digitized, scanned, and sent to the new data center to record all the old transactions.

Thoughts?
 
#3 ·
Bingo!!! If they require all firearms to have a background check, they only way they can ensure that is to have every gun nregistered. That's the next logical progression in the agenda. Once registered, taxation, then incremental confiscation. All the other stuff is just noise, a ruse of distraction to the real goal.
 
#5 ·
Yup. You'll open your mailbox to see your annual tax payment notice/ renewal notice of required fees due on these herein listed guns from the BATFE. I don't think that's much of a stretch.
 
#4 ·
I'm not normally the type of person to start threads like this, or even comment, but this background thing "clicked" for me, and I don't think it has yet for many on this site.

Something stinks, and it's not just the camel's nose in the tent anymore.

I'm only 27, therefore I have no "experience" of being effected with erronious (sp?) and misguided gun laws in my lifetime. However, when I talk with the "older" guys who were around for the previous AWB and even the documenting ammo buyers crap back in the 60s to gain some sort of knowledge and perspective, they can't offer any because they've never seen stuff like this before and the uncharted waters that we're in. That scares me when even the old-timers don't know what's going to happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zacii
#7 ·
Everything that I own that is registered with some government agency has the snot taxed out of it. And if you can't pay the taxes, they take your property. I have no reason to think this would be any different.

I would foresee the progression to having to list them on your federal income tax return much like dependents and then having to pay a tax on each one each year. If your list doesn't match their list, you have to put where, when, how, and to whom was the disposition. If audited and found to be an issue, huge fines and penalties.

Of course, that would just a step towards incremental banning and relinquishment that puts a little money in their coffers. It would deter some from owning any or from owning a large number. That way there's not as many out there when they go get them.

Just my thoughts. I suspect they have a plan that has been thought through many steps down the line.
 
#15 ·
...

I would foresee the progression to having to list them on your federal income tax return much like dependents and then having to pay a tax on each one each year. If your list doesn't match their list, you have to put where, when, how, and to whom was the disposition. If audited and found to be an issue, huge fines and penalties.

....
Precisely. Like with the environmental programs, the agency's assessment is assumed to be accurate (with the weight of law behind it), and the burden of proof is on the individual, with the agency acting as the judge. The govt's inherent incompetency will work in their favor as frustrated gun owners pare down what they own, in order to cut back on their income tax hassle.
 
#10 ·
I see the enforcement of the background checks as the big issue. If it was possible to open NICS to private individuals to call in a verify a purchaser, I could support it. The problem comes when the feds want you to prove the background check was run. I think this is the part that is missing in the polls showing widespread support.
 
#12 ·
I see the enforcement of the background checks as the big issue. If it was possible to open NICS to private individuals to call in a verify a purchaser, I could support it...
What business is it of the federal government's to intervene in private transactions? This is not a power explicitly defined in the constitution, nor is it reserved to the states. Aside from that what benefit is there to conduct these checks? Do you believe criminals will comply with such a law? Or is it more likely that you won't be able to dial into the system to complete a background check on your next-door neighbor who wants to purchase a .22 from you as a gift for his son?
 
#11 ·
I could envision the ATF requiring all 4473s being computerized and a so-called background check being completed automatically as the 4473 is filled out what they will forget to mention is that while you are filling it out the 4473 it is being stored in a database somewhere.
 
#13 ·
the fact that this is being pushed as the "compromise" by the Democrats (or will be)..this is the one to watch out for. The AWB was just a distraction for this bill.
I completely agree. I posted my thoughts on another thread, so I'll link instead of re-posting. Fienstiens bill was planned by design to fail - to push "compromise" legislation. You are right on the money.

http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/158904-what-senator-feinsteins-agenda.html#post2579625 < direct link to the post
 
#14 ·
Yup. Everybody so far has nailed it.

The powers that be have a game plan, everything is deliberate.

I personally think that Fast & Furious was designed to get this ball rolling, but it didn't work out so well. Then along came Sandy Hook and they hit while the iron was hot to take advantage of it.

These are unparalleled times and will prove who is for liberty, and who isn't.

Sent from my Galaxy S2
 
  • Like
Reactions: revldm
#18 ·
OK, Sometimes even I put on a tinfoil hat. My problem with checks is that it is unconstitutional IMO. But they are here. My concern is the slippery slope. It is not beyond the realm of imaginatiion that in the future they will tie in credit checks and seeing if your taxes are payed as part of the background check. It will be under the guise of mental stability. Folks will say that if one is having financial problems then they are at risk of harming themselves and others.
 
#22 ·
Thoughts?
Great avatar.

This is all part of the "fundamental change." Black rifle bans and magazine limits are a problem, and if it is just the next step to ban all guns, then it is a huge problem, but I don't know if it is the biggest problem we face as a country. The federal government is becoming increasingly involved in the private sector while also imposing a variety of measures to decrease the privacy of its citizens. The financial situation is a mess, the illegal immigration system is a mess, the healthcare system is a mess, and the gun control issues are a joke.

I don't like the fact that we are living in an age were the government is beginning to monitor every little thing somebody does.
 
#24 ·
The weapons ban has nothing to do with preventing gun crimes, the crimes are just being used as a tool, it is all about government control, and the removal of the means for the masses to defend themselves against our fast becoming tyrannous government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mg27
#28 ·
Bump for people that need to see why Universal Checks are a badddddd idea!

Write your reps!
 
#29 ·
There was a story on CBS last week on BATFE and about how they are handicapped by not having the records computerized.

Supposedly it takes 350 employees to do traces on all weapons confiscated by LE, and it usually takes them 5 days do do it.

However, they can put a 'rush' on the trace. That's why when an Aurora or Sandy Hook happens, they can find the history of the gun before the evening newscast is over.

A few years ago a local group that called itself a 'militia' was busted on a Thursday night in a nearby town that has a very large area flea market. On Monday, an ABI agent (not ATF) showed up at my door asking about the gun I sold to a co-worker in the early 90's. I told him who I sold it to, and he left. I never heard another word about it, but it didn't take a rocket scientist to know that either the former co-worker had sold it at the flea market, or it made it there through several other hands before it ended up with the 'militia'.

So even without a UBC I think what is in place now is quite sufficient.
 
#32 ·
As demonstrated by Obama & the Libs use of databases for the last election, your voting history, health, sex, buying habits & everything else will be in that database.
 
#31 ·
My major issue at this point is that this has become a buzz word phrase that sounds good but is ill defined and poorly conceived. Think 'patriot act'. I have even see 'do you support universal background checks' being asked on leftist sites. Obviously the ignorant masses equate this with background checks being required to buy a gun, but that is just a simplistic part of it.

Until such time as the shenanigans stop and there is a clear, above board and honest discussion and debate I will refuse to support any anti propositions. They have all been too loaded to accept. This is just one more in the line trying to find the proper pressure point: awb2.0, mag cap limit, insurance and now this. Any guess as to what's next or how long before they give up?
 
#33 ·
#35 ·
I fear you are correct. I think though that a lot of gun owners are going to go along to get along though. At least initially. :mad:
 
#36 ·
Take take take.

That's what they consider compromise.

Take take take take...
Okay, you don't want take take take take?
We'll settle for the last one...
we'll just take that one....
you are really taking advantage of us here...
but...
okay...
we won't take your guns,
your mags,
your bullets...
we'll leave those alone...

We'll just take the UBCs...
Boy, you gunners are tough negotiators...
Thank you for letting us save face here....
The public will know how hard we tried... They really wanted all that stuff, you know...
And you, know this one little tidbit you're throwing us, the UBC's, well we'll settle for that,
I guess...

Sigh.

Smirk.

On their way out the door, I swore I heard Bloomberg.....





LAUGH OUT LOUD!


BWAHAHAHAHAHA!


SUUUUUUCKERS!
 
#37 ·
I wish this issue could get the same run and frothing at the mouth that the AWB got. This one scares the heck outta me because I don't see the unity from the gun community in opposing UBC. Perhaps this was all an elaborate plan on the admin's side to wear us down with the AWB ruse when the UBC was really the goal.

I'm confident in my KY reps to oppose this, but I sent off my letters anyway.
 
#38 ·
We need to keep up the pressure AGAINST any UBC or the like:

Last week I asked you to call your senators and tell them to vote against every element of President Barack Obama's gun ban agenda.

Your calls are working! I've received numerous reports that NRA members are lighting up the phone lines and our senators are definitely hearing from us.

HOWEVER, now we need to take our phone campaign to the next level.
There are 20 U.S. senators, in particular, who hold the fate of your freedom in their hands.

These senators represent states where gun ownership is respected and our Second Amendment freedoms are revered.

But right now, they're facing huge pressure from the gun ban lobby and Barack Obama to support Obama's extreme gun control agenda!

So please, call each of the senators below and tell them to vote NO on any gun ban...NO on any magazine ban...NO on criminalizing private firearm transfers...and NO on any gun registration scheme.

Sen. Max Baucus 202-224-2651
Sen. Mark Begich 202-224-3004
Sen. Susan Collins 202-224-2523
Sen. Joe Donnelly 202-224-4814
Sen. Kay Hagan 202-224-6342
Sen. Martin Heinrich 202-224-5521
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp 202-224-2043
Sen. Tim Johnson 202-224-5842
Sen. Tim Kaine 202-224-4024
Sen. Angus King 202-224-5344
Sen. Mary Landrieu 202-224-5824
Sen. Joe Manchin 202-224-3954
Sen. Claire McCaskill 202-224-6154
Sen. Mark Pryor 202-224-2353
Sen. Harry Reid 202-224-3542
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen 202-224-2841
Sen. Jon Tester 202-224-2644
Sen. Mark Udall 202-224-5941
Sen. Tom Udall 202-224-6621
Sen. Mark Warner 202-224-2023
Spread your calls out over several days if you need to.

And remember: It doesn't matter if you do not live in these senators' states - YOU NEED TO CALL THEM. After all, the votes they cast will affect you no matter where you live!

Thank you for your hard work and dedication to winning this battle. Now is not the time to let up! Call each of these 20 senators as soon as you can.

By working together, we can defeat the Obama gun ban agenda and save the Second Amendment!!!

Chris

Chris W. Cox
Executive Director
NRA-PVF | PVF Home
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top