Un-intended Consiquences: Universal Background Checks

[ICU 812]

I do not want this thread to be about the pros and cons of gun controle. I do want this to be a discussion of the potential un-intended consiquences of instituting universal background checks whenever a firearm is transferred to a new owner.

Background checks are done through a gun dealer who has a Federal Firearms License or FFL. The FFL holder will charge a fee, typically $50 or more. If the two parties cannot be present for tyhis transfer, the gun dealer will ship the firearm to another dealer and both parties will pay a fee. When purchasing a new firearm, this is not too burdensome, it happens every day already. But suppose you are giving a firearm you already own to a relative. There will be a fee . . .maybe two.

The result will be that low socio-economic gun owners will be less likely to be able to legally own a firearm. This could be your sister, newly on her own or your widowed aunt in a changing neighborhood.

Universal background checks may be a great idea . . . .but lets think about it first.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

I do not want this thread to be about the pros and cons of gun controle. I do want this to be a discussion of the potential un-intended consiquences of instituting universal BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR EVERY TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF A FIREARM.

Not sure where you are going with the thread, but family transfer of firearms is almost entirely outside the vein of background checks.

And very few firearms transferred that way have been tracked back to any sort of mass shooting or major criminal intent.

That's is however just one way firearms are transferred, but it's the largest method outside of gun sales that are regulated by checks today.

[LexusLover]

Consequence:

A public record of litigation to overturn an administrative decision to prohibit someone from acquiring a "firearm" based upon the allegations of a disgruntled ex-wife/ex-GF in which during the litigation the personal information about the person seeking authorization to acquire the weapon regarding his "tendencies" that "factually" indicate his mental instability .... including, but not limited to, searches of his or her residence, investigation of managing financial affairs, and "expert testimony" from psychological profilers who claim to be able to determine one's mental stability from third-party anecdotal remarks .... like we hear regularly on the LameStreamMedia ... and in Congress ... not to mention the Anti-Gun, Socialist, Nazis, Liberals who can read minds!

Fallout from the above .... A Firearm Black Market!

Its just cheaper to buy one off the grid.

Think of all the things our Government has tried to "regulate" into nonexistence in an effort to manage social behavior ..... which was later "legalized"!!! Just about everything Government tries to regulate fails, which includes health care and driver training!

Mexico REGULATES FIREARMS!!!!!!!!!!!

[the_real_Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by eccielover

Not sure where you are going with the thread, but family transfer of firearms is almost entirely outside the vein of background checks.

And very few firearms transferred that way have been tracked back to any sort of mass shooting or major criminal intent.

That's is however just one way firearms are transferred, but it's the largest method outside of gun sales that are regulated by checks today.

Where he is going should obvious; the left wing of government wants to be in on ANY transfer of firearms between any two people. They have said as much. They have even refused to define transfer. I sell a friend a gun, that's a transfer. I give a gun to a relative for their birthday, that's a transfer. I loan a shotgun to a co worker, that's a transfer. My sister has an abusive ex, I loan her a .45 automatic indefinitely. That's a transfer. This won't stop mass shootings or crime in general, it's just giving the police and prosecutor a way to have more leverage on you.

[rexdutchman]

You forgot "if u look at another gun it a transfer "

[ICU 812]

Originally Posted by eccielover

Not sure where you are going with the thread, but family transfer of firearms is almost entirely outside the vein of background checks.

If you are not sure, please re-read the first post.

I feel that the article, while left-leaning toward gun control, actually outlines the reasons for voting for a candidate that will commit to appointing conse3rvative judges . . .and for candidates who will support the appointments of conservative judges.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

I do not want this thread to be about the pros and cons of gun controle. I do want this to be a discussion of the potential un-intended consiquences of instituting universal background checks whenever a firearm is transferred to a new owner.

Background checks are done through a gun dealer who has a Federal Firearms License or FFL. The FFL holder will charge a fee, typically $50 or more. If the two parties cannot be present for tyhis transfer, the gun dealer will ship the firearm to another dealer and both parties will pay a fee. When purchasing a new firearm, this is not too burdensome, it happens every day already. But suppose you are giving a firearm you already own to a relative. There will be a fee . . .maybe two.

The result will be that low socio-economic gun owners will be less likely to be able to legally own a firearm. This could be your sister, newly on her own or your widowed aunt in a changing neighborhood.

Universal background checks may be a great idea . . . .but lets think about it first.

Originally Posted by ICU 812

If you are not sure, please re-read the first post.

I feel that the article, while left-leaning toward gun control, actually outlines the reasons for voting for a candidate that will commit to appointing conse3rvative judges . . .and for candidates who will support the appointments of conservative judges.

I guess I'm still confused. What "article"? You have a couple sentences snipped together discussing the consequences of universal backround checks, then go off to discuss the maybe "fees" associated with transferring a gun and the socio-economic results of that.

If there is an underlying article you would like discussed that talks more in detail, especially about suggestions on voting for a candidate I'd certainly like to see it.

I'm just confused where you were going.

[ICU 812]

In days past, the right to vote was restricted to those who could own property or to those who could pay a Poll tax. Low socio-economic voters were denied theor constitutional rights by pricing them out of the system.

Forcing anyone who buys or sells a firearm to another individual to pay a ffee is in this same realm of financially driven rights denial.

When it was the right to vote, the Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional. Now it it the Second Amendment right to own firearms. Only a conservative court will strike this down. We need a conservative president, Senate and House.

[oeb11]

There are valid concerns about individual freedoms, and rights of individuals possessing weapons - to be trampled under registration and "red flag" laws.

a major issue with "Red Flag" laws - some do not provide for the accused to have representation, counsel, or to be present and participate in such hearings. .Or even to be notified until such hearing is over.

If i ever heard of a better definition of Star Chamber proceedings - I haven't.


Absent clear protections of civil rights for legal weapons holders - those laws are low hanging fruit for DPST governmental abuse of citizens.
BTW - there are previous threads on those laws.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

In days past, the right to vote was restricted to those who could own property or to those who could pay a Poll tax. Low socio-economic voters were denied theor constitutional rights by pricing them out of the system.

Forcing anyone who buys or sells a firearm to another individual to pay a ffee is in this same realm of financially driven rights denial.

When it was the right to vote, the Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional. Now it it the Second Amendment right to own firearms. Only a conservative court will strike this down. We need a conservative president, Senate and House.

See that explains it a little better. However, we don't have currently have those fees for those types of transfers, so the easy answer is don't implement them now.

[ICU 812]

Originally Posted by eccielover

I guess I'm still confused. What "article"? You have a couple sentences snipped together discussing the consequences of universal backround checks, then go off to discuss the maybe "fees" associated with transferring a gun and t

You are so right. I apologize for the age-related brain burp.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/reshaping...152344691.html

[oeb11]

As i understand the law - intra-state transfers between individuals who may legally possess a firearm do not require a background check or FFL (Federal Firearms Licensee) involvement - and thus no fee.

Inter-state firearm transfers are Federally regulated, and required to be processed through a FFl in at least one of the states of Transfer. There is a fee for that FFL service.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

You are so right. I apologize for the age-related brain burp.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/reshaping...152344691.html

And thank you again. This makes your statements so much more meaningful.

Getting conservative judges at all levels of the court from the SCOTUS on down has been my number 1 priority is how I both voted in 2016 and plan to vote 2020.

The end about efforts of some states to limit the 2nd amendment through BS actions is ridiculous but often upheld by some liberal courts. And more and more BS efforts are being pushed daily.

[oeb11]

Perhaps it is better terminology as ; Judges who endorse strict construction and interpretation of the Constitution as written
v
Liberal ideologues who choose to write law as they think/wish it should be in their own DPST ideology.



Shorter your Way!

[rexdutchman]

But it is about control ,,,, we already have background checks