To be honest the UBC is a hoax in a sense, it has nothing to do with any else other than registration. If the government can make a few bucks along the way, they feel they are doing well. They fear me being able to sell a gun to you, and them not know about it...
Thoughts on Univeral Background Checks (or BCs in general)
This may have been covered in another post and I have missed. If so I my appologies.
If I understand fully the issue at hand, some states are considering Universal Background Checks in which the buyer would have to pay a sum of money for a background check to be completed. One figure I have heard is $10. I suppose it could be more in some states. Now, I know that in some states we are already paying this fee for exsisting state level checks. I have paid it quite a few times myself.
My question is this, how can this not be treated like a poll tax? I understand that in this case you are actually receiving goods and/or services from a retailer but think about this for a minute. In the case of poll taxes only the wealthiest voters could "afford" to vote. In this case only those with an extra $10 bucks are going to be able to "afford" a background check. I further understand that when we are talking about a purchase that could be as much as $1000 dollars, ten bucks is a drop in the buck, but the money isnt the issue.
I could go further by saying that in order to receive a backround check to purchase a firearm the buyer needs to provide a state issued photo ID. How is this any different from requiring an individual to provide a photo ID in order to vote? If one is "racist" or "demeaning to the underpriviledged" how is the other not? How does one "disenfranchise" and the other does not?
I am trying to find the flaws in this argument. The way I can see around the money issue is by the state (or federal) government raising taxes in order to provide a free service. This does not get around the photo ID question issue though.
If I understand fully the issue at hand, some states are considering Universal Background Checks in which the buyer would have to pay a sum of money for a background check to be completed. One figure I have heard is $10. I suppose it could be more in some states. Now, I know that in some states we are already paying this fee for exsisting state level checks. I have paid it quite a few times myself.
My question is this, how can this not be treated like a poll tax? I understand that in this case you are actually receiving goods and/or services from a retailer but think about this for a minute. In the case of poll taxes only the wealthiest voters could "afford" to vote. In this case only those with an extra $10 bucks are going to be able to "afford" a background check. I further understand that when we are talking about a purchase that could be as much as $1000 dollars, ten bucks is a drop in the buck, but the money isnt the issue.
I could go further by saying that in order to receive a backround check to purchase a firearm the buyer needs to provide a state issued photo ID. How is this any different from requiring an individual to provide a photo ID in order to vote? If one is "racist" or "demeaning to the underpriviledged" how is the other not? How does one "disenfranchise" and the other does not?
I am trying to find the flaws in this argument. The way I can see around the money issue is by the state (or federal) government raising taxes in order to provide a free service. This does not get around the photo ID question issue though.
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
I don't know about other places,but,here,you buy a firearm,you fill out the paperwork.They take your CCP number if you have one, and they don't run a background check,that's all there is to it.The UBC is not what we need.It is what the feds and antis want to happen.It's more about gun registration.
Here in SC, that's if you have your permit and buy from a store. without a permit, they call you in on each purchase from a shop.I don't know about other places,but,here,you buy a firearm,you fill out the paperwork.They take your CCP number if you have one, and they don't run a background check,that's all there is to it.The UBC is not what we need.It is what the feds and antis want to happen.It's more about gun registration.
Far are private sales no background check is needed.
I had one handgun for a while.i had put one on layaway,not long ago.I got it out last week.I have a permit,so they didn't run one on me.I'm assuming,lol,since you went thru a background check for the permit,that should be good enough.
I'm all for UBCs, provided they fit two criteria: 1)no fee the an individual, paid for by the same funds that already pay for NICS. 2) No change from the current laws on which people are allowed or not allowed to own/buy firearms.
To me, it seems like those most staunchly opposed to UBCs either 1) are in the 'chicken little the sky is falling' school of paranoid thought on gun control in general OR 2) have something to hide and can't pass a background check in general.
To me, it seems like those most staunchly opposed to UBCs either 1) are in the 'chicken little the sky is falling' school of paranoid thought on gun control in general OR 2) have something to hide and can't pass a background check in general.
No madder what they say when they run a back round check your buying . The serial number is recorded. They know what you bought and the serial number.
We had that proven many times already.
All this is about is getting a record of every fire arm owned ,they can't really ban them until they find out who has what.
This is the foot in the door, They don't care about the rest of the bills for now.
We had that proven many times already.
All this is about is getting a record of every fire arm owned ,they can't really ban them until they find out who has what.
This is the foot in the door, They don't care about the rest of the bills for now.
Interesting opinion. Would you care to elaborate? Do you have some insider information that dispels the fear that UBC's will lead to or create registartion?I'm all for UBCs, provided they fit two criteria: 1)no fee the an individual, paid for by the same funds that already pay for NICS. 2) No change from the current laws on which people are allowed or not allowed to own/buy firearms.
To me, it seems like those most staunchly opposed to UBCs either 1) are in the 'chicken little the sky is falling' school of paranoid thought on gun control in general OR 2) have something to hide and can't pass a background check in general.
We seem to have strayed from the question at hand. Let me try again.
1) How can a group of people--the left in this case--say on one hand "We can not force people to show a photo ID to vote because many of them do not have a photo ID nor can they afford one" and at the same time say "If a person wants to buy a firearm they have to show a photo ID." Is this not a contradiction? Are they not disenfranchising the same group of people they claim they are trying to protect? As far as I know, Photo ID is required by every state that allows a CCP. How is this not similar to requiring photo ID to vote?
2) If a person is charged a fee for a background check (which many states do) and they can not afford the fee, does this not place an "undue burden" upon the buyer?
I am not arguing that a Photo ID should or should not be a requirement for a firearm purchase or CCP application. Nor am I arguing the real reason for a UBC or any BC for that matter. Those are discussions for another thread.
Your thoughts on these two arguments?
1) How can a group of people--the left in this case--say on one hand "We can not force people to show a photo ID to vote because many of them do not have a photo ID nor can they afford one" and at the same time say "If a person wants to buy a firearm they have to show a photo ID." Is this not a contradiction? Are they not disenfranchising the same group of people they claim they are trying to protect? As far as I know, Photo ID is required by every state that allows a CCP. How is this not similar to requiring photo ID to vote?
2) If a person is charged a fee for a background check (which many states do) and they can not afford the fee, does this not place an "undue burden" upon the buyer?
I am not arguing that a Photo ID should or should not be a requirement for a firearm purchase or CCP application. Nor am I arguing the real reason for a UBC or any BC for that matter. Those are discussions for another thread.
Your thoughts on these two arguments?
If the government wants to charge a fee for a service, it will do so. We currently pay fees to obtain a passport and driver's license. I don't see how the UBC would be considered a poll tax. An argument that I see as valid is why are we being charged any fees to exercise our Constitutional right. You don't have to pay a fee to write a letter to the editor. You can also stand in the park and speak about whatever you want. Why would the second amendment be subjected to fees when other amendments and rights aren't?
I'd be interested to hear an elaboration as well.I'm all for UBCs, provided they fit two criteria: 1)no fee the an individual, paid for by the same funds that already pay for NICS. 2) No change from the current laws on which people are allowed or not allowed to own/buy firearms.
To me, it seems like those most staunchly opposed to UBCs either 1) are in the 'chicken little the sky is falling' school of paranoid thought on gun control in general OR 2) have something to hide and can't pass a background check in general.
1) You can not now, nor will you ever convince me, that no one in congress wants to confiscate firearms. Maybe not all makes and models of firearms but certainly many examples owned by members of the forum.
2) I have nothing to hide.
PM me if you wish to discuss.Interesting opinion. Would you care to elaborate? Do you have some insider information that dispels the fear that UBC's will lead to or create registartion?
Ah! This is what I was looking for.If the government wants to charge a fee for a service, it will do so. We currently pay fees to obtain a passport and driver's license. I don't see how the UBC would be considered a poll tax. An argument that I see as valid is why are we being charged any fees to exercise our Constitutional right. You don't have to pay a fee to write a letter to the editor. You can also stand in the park and speak about whatever you want. Why would the second amendment be subjected to fees when other amendments and rights aren't?
A service? What type of service?
A fee for a passport? Well, ok. That is a service because they are providing something that other countries require for you to visit. You can not visit with out one and you can not go to your local Wal-Mart and buy one. That is indeed a service.
What is the service they are providing ME by charging ME for a background check? Is it a service to YOU in that they are insuring that I am not a hardened criminal when I buy a firearm? Is this not an unreasonable search? Has the burden of proof fallen back on me?
I capitalized "ME" and "YOU" for emphasis. I am not trying to be a jerk.
)Yes, it is. But, so the logic goes, because it's firearms, it is worth such inconsistencies.1) How can (some) say on one hand "We can not force people to show a photo ID to vote because many of them do not have a photo ID nor can they afford one" and at the same time say "If a person wants to buy a firearm they have to show a photo ID." Is this not a contradiction?
No, so the logic goes, given that a person's in the shop buying a gun anyway, and ~$10-15 should be achievable by the buyer if a ~$300+ gun is being purchased.2) If a person is charged a fee for a background check (which many states do) and they can not afford the fee, does this not place an "undue burden" upon the buyer?
==========
Of course, none of this is here or there, IMO.
The 2A protects the pre-existing RIGHT of all citizens to arm themselves, and such checks infringe upon that right. It is not a right only subject to the government knowing every single transaction you engage in and every single weapon you choose to buy or sell. It is not a right subject to being willing to pay for government intrusion and infringement upon it. It is a RIGHT. Let alone the direct threat of future tracking down of innocents for politically-motivated purposes and the threat of future confiscation ... which the track record of our temporary hirelings hasn't proven to be an unreasonable consideration on the part of we People who have hired their butts.
As an FFL I am going to charge 250 bucks per NICS check. Why? Because I can.
Two, because I am in the "chicken little the sky is falling" school of paranoid thought in gun control, I have something to hide, and I cant pass a background check in general
Three, because I am convinced that the Federal Government knows of every single NICs transaction ever done, and have proof of it
Four, because I WANT the Federal Governement to register every single gunowner in America
Five,because I am too stupid to understand the nature of tyrants and I want them to be able to track that which they fear
Six, because I am not a student of history and I know that in general man kind IS stupid enough to repeat history over and over and over,no matter how much bad is in it.
and last but not least, no matter what I read or hear about it, I am convinced that the governement has our best interests at heart, that they really do care about us and they already know that passing more laws on those that dont abide by the law is a very intelligent thing to do.
Yeah. Thats it.
Two, because I am in the "chicken little the sky is falling" school of paranoid thought in gun control, I have something to hide, and I cant pass a background check in general
Three, because I am convinced that the Federal Government knows of every single NICs transaction ever done, and have proof of it
Four, because I WANT the Federal Governement to register every single gunowner in America
Five,because I am too stupid to understand the nature of tyrants and I want them to be able to track that which they fear
Six, because I am not a student of history and I know that in general man kind IS stupid enough to repeat history over and over and over,no matter how much bad is in it.
and last but not least, no matter what I read or hear about it, I am convinced that the governement has our best interests at heart, that they really do care about us and they already know that passing more laws on those that dont abide by the law is a very intelligent thing to do.
Yeah. Thats it.
^ That's what I really meant, HG. Thanks. :smile:
The answer, I'm afraid, is far too simple. The franchise is (more or less) universally regarded as an inalienable right. There is no "Voting Control, Inc," or "Assault Voter Bans" in existence. The fact is that a large percentage of the population (and the legislature) does not believe - at all - that owning firearms is a right. Therefore, there is (in their minds) no correlation between restricting firearms purchases and restricting voting. This will be a non-started of an argument with anti's. Then again, most are...
Sadly, I believe you are 100% correct OPFOR. Getting antis to understand that 2A is in place to protect the other 26 is akin to pulling hens teeth.The answer, I'm afraid, is far too simple. The franchise is (more or less) universally regarded as an inalienable right. There is no "Voting Control, Inc," or "Assault Voter Bans" in existence. The fact is that a large percentage of the population (and the legislature) does not believe - at all - that owning firearms is a right. Therefore, there is (in their minds) no correlation between restricting firearms purchases and restricting voting. This will be a non-started of an argument with anti's. Then again, most are...
I just think it is interesting that the left and the antis (lets face it, they are generally one in the same) say they stand for the "less fortunate" by saying they want to "remove all barriers" to one right and then places barriers to another right on those exact same people. But then, that does seem to be the modus operandi now doesn't it. Sort of like "you follow me and I'll take care of you".
Nice HG. I blew milk out of my nose at this.As an FFL I am going to charge 250 bucks per NICS check. Why? Because I can.
Two, because I am in the "chicken little the sky is falling" school of paranoid thought in gun control, I have something to hide, and I cant pass a background check in general
Three, because I am convinced that the Federal Government knows of every single NICs transaction ever done, and have proof of it
Four, because I WANT the Federal Governement to register every single gunowner in America
Five,because I am too stupid to understand the nature of tyrants and I want them to be able to track that which they fear
Six, because I am not a student of history and I know that in general man kind IS stupid enough to repeat history over and over and over,no matter how much bad is in it.
and last but not least, no matter what I read or hear about it, I am convinced that the governement has out best interests at heart, that they really do care about us and they already know that passing more laws on those that dont abide by the law is a very intelligent thing to do.
Yeah. Thats it.
)Thanks, I'll pass. I'm more than fairly certain no such insider information exists.PM me if you wish to discuss.
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Defensive Carry
A forum community dedicated to defensive firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about everyday carry, optics, holsters, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
