|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics39,884
Posts567,996
Members14,640
| |
Most Online9,918 Jul 28th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,763 Likes: 374
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,763 Likes: 374 |
My god no not at all. By Federal law any Government body associated with your back ground check is prohibited from entering the information into a searchable database. When you buy a gun they have no idea what you except if it is a long gun or a handgun. Not the make, model, serial# or caliber. Those records stay with the FFL holder for 20 years or until he closes shop.... I thought you said the status quo was no good? The ideologues calling for more gun control do not care about the established practices of an FFL holder. I don't intend to put words into his mouth, but Bill is hinting at all firearms transfers going through a background check. Maybe, exactly like how it's done in Oregon? A background check for a private transfer does not assume the seller is held to the same standards as an FFL holder, nor can it be assumed that an e-background check that includes make, model and serial number will somehow be unpreserved and not available for instant search. Isn't your point to stop criminals? As to fees, you do not have the protection of the law against punitive amounts. In truth you're describing luck. There are so many examples of fees and taxes to do business in other fields besides yours that have mushroomed. I wouldn't assume being immune from them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,356 Likes: 159
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,356 Likes: 159 |
federal background checks are a gross abuse of federal power and are generally ineffective...the more local the police authority that performs background checks, the more effective the information actually revealed becomes...this fact is no better illustrated than new york state's sullivan law, which regulates civilian possession of handguns...in order to possess a handgun in new york state, one submits a permit application to ones local police authority, where the background check process begins...it is a bottom up process that ends at the federal level...whereas the present federal based system is ass backwards and only reveals that information that has been uploaded to the fbi data base...just imagine if the parkland murderer would have first had to have the approval of his local police authority before taking possession of his ar or any other firearm...
Last edited by ed good; 02/25/18 06:34 PM.
keep it simple and keep it safe...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,126 Likes: 53
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,126 Likes: 53 |
Ed, what makes them an abuse? Why not do state, local, and federal? The point is to prevent the misuse of guns, something that will bite us hard if we don't find ways of counteracting it.
Bill Ferguson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 7,484 Likes: 779
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 7,484 Likes: 779 |
You are mixing apples and oranges. We need better reporting to NICS or in cases like my state, our CBI. We require all guns, even private transfers to get a back ground check through an FFl, same as if it was a retail purchase. I do not offer that service. It is up to the buyer and seller to find a FFL who does. I do all my 4473's online, or an e-back ground check as you say. I never transmit to our CBI what you are buying other than checking the appropriate box for long gun or hand gun. The paper records stay with me and the CBI or in most cases the FBI never sees what you buy.
I can not be too upset that someday the fee may become too high. Really? These are your worries? Sounds like a bunch of hand wringing over problems that do not exist to me. If the cost of a 15$ background check is too much for you to bare maybe the gun game is not for you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 29
Boxlock
|
Boxlock
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 29 |
Ed, what makes them an abuse? Why not do state, local, and federal? The point is to prevent the misuse of guns, something that will bite us hard if we don't find ways of counteracting it. Our firm has one of the few dedicated firearms law practice groups in our state. Quite honestly, the federal background check system has jammed up more innocent people who don't belong in the database than it has prevented any "prohibited possessor" from obtaining a firearm. Most truly dangerous people do not bother purchasing their weapons from an FFL, anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,429 Likes: 8
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,429 Likes: 8 |
Most truly dangerous people do not bother purchasing their weapons from an FFL, anyway.
The gun(s) used will probably be stolen because previous owner did not secure them properly taken from relatives or friends because they were not stored securely or purchased in state w/o background check where no such check on private gun sales is required. Don't worry if we don't secure our guns as responsible gun owners they will secure them for us.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,015
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,015 |
Universal backround check in both CO and WA are a failure and waste of time.If my state or federal law goes to it I will not do them either.Without a gun registry they are useless and the left knows that is the first step they need to confiscation. http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2...aws-co-wa-fail/"Notice, the citizenry and law enforcement alike expressed little desire to comply with laws, which have now proven a waste of time.The failure of these laws actually goes to the fact that universal background checks are unenforceable without a gun registry, and neither Colorado nor Washington state enacted such a registry. This is not lost on the researchers who studied the failure of gun control in Colorado and Washington state.
Hillary For Prison 2018
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,429 Likes: 8
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,429 Likes: 8 |
[quote=rocky mtn bill]Yes, Drew, It makes sense to guard our children. However, that isn't all it makes sense to do. Why should we settle for hunkering down? That's got to be a temporary measure. On another topic, the AR-15 is our worst enemy as gun owners. It has come to represent everything about firearms that the general public won't tolerate. It appeals precisely to those people who should never get their hands on a gun. Granted most owners are responsible people, but deranged shooters know it is the weapon of choice. Make them Class III. I owned semi-auto version of Chinese AKM with high capacity magazines. I sold mine when the prices were high. They are f useless.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,971 Likes: 814
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,971 Likes: 814 |
Yes, Drew, It makes sense to guard our children. However, that isn't all it makes sense to do. Why should we settle for hunkering down? That's got to be a temporary measure. On another topic, the AR-15 is our worst enemy as gun owners. It has come to represent everything about firearms that the general public won't tolerate. It appeals precisely to those people who should never get their hands on a gun. Granted most owners are responsible people, but deranged shooters know it is the weapon of choice. Make them Class III. Wow, some good points have been made since last night, and some incredibly stupid ones such as Bill's predictable suggestion to get rid of AR-15 or to make them Class III. Public perception is important, to be sure. Once again, that's why I keep saying that we as gun owners need to counteract the lying media and the lying Liberal Left with the facts that dangers from AR-15's are minuscule compared to seemingly benign things like teen driving and texting while driving. Not that many years ago, the Left and the media advanced and nurtured the perception that handguns were the big evil. If they ever succeed at banning AR-15's, you can bet handguns will become their target once again. Stevie's comment about the Las Vegas shooter hitting over 400 people once again ignorantly ignores the Nice, France attack where a rented truck was used to kill and injure even more people. So using his AR-15 versus Mauser argument, is he also suggesting that we should eliminate large trucks from our country because they can do much more damage than small trucks? Oh wait... Stevie says he doesn't wish to ban AR-15's. But he did say they should be classified as Class III firearms and he did say wouldn't care if they became as extinct as the dodo bird. Well, that should certainly make us all feel that he's the reincarnation of Charleton Heston! And once again, Jagermeister insists we should be required to secure all of our guns in a safe... even though he doesn't do that. And he is another Libtard who must run like a coward from the fact that killers don't need an AR-15 to kill and injure large numbers of people. This morning, there was a spokesperson for Handgun Control Inc. on Fox News and she was asked the reasons that anti-gunners want a ban on the AR-15, and what the difference was between them and millions of other semi-auto rifles and shotguns. One of her points was that the .223 or 5.56 m/m round is so needlessly powerful because it has a velocity 3 times faster than most handgun rounds, and does so much damage to flesh. By that logic, almost all bolt action deer, elk, or varmint rifles are much worse in terms of velocity and energy. I like Drew's idea of really securing the perimeter of our schools like they do in Central America until we can find better ways to keep mentally ill killers from targeting them. It's sad to think that adults in those countries are intelligent enough to protect their kids in a way most Liberals resist. Most of us are smart enough to understand that a total ban on AR-15's, AK-47's, SKS's, Mini 14's and other hi-capacity semi auto rifles is still going to leave tens of millions of them out there. The owner of my local gun shop said he has sold a dozen AR-15's just in the last week in response to the latest calls to ban them. I'd guess that same scenario is playing out in almost every gun store in the U.S right now. We have armed security and metal detectors at our Courthouses, Government Buildings, and Airports, etc., so why would people like rocky mtn bill be stupid enough to resist the same for our schools? And especially when their predictable Liberal Left anti-gun solutions would be useless other than helping the anti-gunners get closer to their goal of eventually eliminating our gun rights and our guns. Remember folks, the dishonest polling organizations that are telling you that 93% of Americans want these AR-15 bans, Universal Background Checks, etc. are the same Polls that said Trump was going to lose in a landslide of historic proportions. Gun owners who are not weak, fearful, or stupid should stand and fight... not crumble. We should never be afraid or ashamed to protect our Civil Rights, and the RKBA is a fundamental Civil Right.
Voting for anti-gun Democrats is dumber than giving treats to a dog that shits on a Persian Rug
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 7,484 Likes: 779
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 7,484 Likes: 779 |
and that has exactly zero to do with the fact that our CBI conducts a more thorough back ground check that catches more people trying to break the law.
For the record, I do not support universal back ground checks but a strengthened reporting system which prevents more convicts from obtaining firearms through licensed sellers I fully support.
|
|
|
|
|