Stop the Universal Background Check.

[JerrySharrett]

Think about this for a minute, the proposed Universal Background Check (UBC). Once that database is built it can easily be used as a "gun owner" database. As calls come in to the UBC, just one more little bit of data mining needs to be done to extract a list of who owns guns and eventually how many guns each American citizen has.

As it is now proposed, if it is required to use the UBC for private gun sales transactions, in just a few years most all gun buying requests will list most all gun owners, private and dealer related.This is a violation of the "illegal search" provision of the 4th Amendment!

Contact your members of Congress and tell, yes TELL them, to NOT support any sort of database that relates to gun purchases. Our laws need to be written and enforced to prosecute illegal use of guns, not illegal purchases.

There are other ways to deal with the mental health issue without tying it to gun purchases.

 

[Hunter]

Our laws need to be written and enforced to prosecute illegal use of guns, not illegal purchases.

You're okay with illegal gun purchases?

 

[JJ-IA]

You're okay with illegal gun purchases?

Absolutely not!
These gun buy-back programs illegally funded with tax payer monies should stop immediately!

Now a question for you
In your opinion, should a father be allowed to buy his 12 year old son a 22 rimfire or shotgun and give it to him as a Christmas gift?

 

[Chism G]

UBC Data Base

.

As it is now proposed, if it is required to use the UBC for private gun sales transactions, in just a few years most all gun buying requests will list most all gun owners, private and dealer related.This is a violation of the "illegal search" provision of the 4th Amendment!


Jerry....Wouldn't that depend on how and what the data is used for?



Glenn

 

[JerrySharrett]

You're okay with illegal gun purchases?

OK, genius, what constitutes an illegal gun purchase if there were no laws restricting gun purchases of any kind.

I'm not even against convicted felons owning guns if our legal system has determined that person has served their due penalty.

The mentally disturbed is another kettle of fish and it should not be used in any gun ownership regulation. The 2nd Amendment of our Constitution says, very clearly, we have the right to keep and bear arms. Not hard to understand at all.

 

[mike in co]

glenn,
in my humble opinion...
just having the data is a violation..without ever using it for anything...
because it would be there AND COULD be used.
if it was not there, it could NOT BE USED OR ABUSED.
mike in co

.

As it is now proposed, if it is required to use the UBC for private gun sales transactions, in just a few years most all gun buying requests will list most all gun owners, private and dealer related.This is a violation of the "illegal search" provision of the 4th Amendment!


Jerry....Wouldn't that depend on how and what the data is used for?



Glenn

 

[Hunter]

OK, genius, what constitutes an illegal gun purchase if there were no laws restricting gun purchases of any kind.

I'm not even against convicted felons owning guns if our legal system has determined that person has served their due penalty.

The mentally disturbed is another kettle of fish and it should not be used in any gun ownership regulation. The 2nd Amendment of our Constitution says, very clearly, we have the right to keep and bear arms. Not hard to understand at all.

Maybe I now understand where you are -- maybe you think the 2A provides that there should be absolutely no restriction on the ownership or transfer of guns. If that's the case, I understand your comments; however, I'm willing to defer to the Supremes view on the breadth of the 2A, and since their view allows some restrictions (which result in illegal gun purchases) I'm willing to accept that as part of the price of living in our society.

BTW, I tend to agree with your second sentence above; however, it appears that our legal system has determined that a convicted felon never fully serves their due penalty.

 

[VaniB]

I'd never say this on AR15.com, because I'd get called a fu**ing %$#! over there by the Rambo types. But frankly, something has to be done to prevent gang bangers from readily and EASILY buying guns at the gunshows, or letting their girl friend or somebody else do a straw purchase for them. Either is way too simple to do. In Texas and most states, their are no background checks required to sell a gun to a "friend" or ANYBODY! I have with my own eyes seen the most appalling and scuzzy looking humans with their pants hanging past their a*s gravitate right over to the private sales tables at gunshows and pick up the Glock 27. Funny how they never look over the Marlin 39A or the Hammerli .32 . It's just so damn stereotype!!!


The problem I have with the politicians is that they don't differentiate between me, you, or that human POS that I detest. Yes, the politicians are a problem, and I resent that even with the clean record and other requirements that I submitted to in order to obtainin my CHL, they still would deny me ownership of an AR15 or a high capacity magazine. But this is the country you and I live in, and if nothing is done, public opinion will be swayed and we will all ultimately lose our rights due to the 1% of the population of nuts and scuzzballs that commit the crimes.

 

[mike in co]

maybe you will stop generalities and tell us specifically what the restrictions are based on the lastest supreme court rulings ??
'cause they specifically said military style is covered in malitia/shall not be infringed....

mike in co

Maybe I now understand where you are -- maybe you think the 2A provides that there should be absolutely no restriction on the ownership or transfer of guns. If that's the case, I understand your comments; however, I'm willing to defer to the Supremes view on the breadth of the 2A, and since their view allows some restrictions (which result in illegal gun purchases) I'm willing to accept that as part of the price of living in our society.

BTW, I tend to agree with your second sentence above; however, it appears that our legal system has determined that a convicted felon never fully serves their due penalty.

 

[ReedG]

VaniB ... I intend no sarcasm in this, but where is the evidence of felons buying ARs at gun shows, illegally? In Vermont they are trying to pass a new law requiring background checks on all gun sales, even to friends and family, by stating the need to stop criminals from buying guns at gun shows. I've been to many gun shows, bought and sold guns in the parking lot, and to my knowledge never seen a "criminal" doing that. Is there real evidence of this?

 

[glp]

Well

Maybe I now understand where you are -- maybe you think the 2A provides that there should be absolutely no restriction on the ownership or transfer of guns. If that's the case, I understand your comments; however, I'm willing to defer to the Supremes view on the breadth of the 2A, and since their view allows some restrictions (which result in illegal gun purchases) I'm willing to accept that as part of the price of living in our society.

BTW, I tend to agree with your second sentence above; however, it appears that our legal system has determined that a convicted felon never fully serves their due penalty.

The word infringed as used in the Second Amendment means limit or encroach or undermine. The wide rangeing restrictions we have today are illegal...period!

 

[JerrySharrett]

In all these restriction examples you/they propose to hold the inert-inanimate object guilty by restricting its ownership?

You will better spend your time in looking for the who/why/what of this well orchestrated, well financed attempt at yet another gun grab.

 

[cbrock]

Gregg, Amen! Cheers, Charles

 

[Vibe]

My attempt at proposing a "solution" to "background checks" hasn't changed much over the course of quite a few years.
IF a person has some reason that he/she cannot own a firearm - the controlling authorities can simply flag their photo ID (Operators License). That way, even in a face to face individual sale, all the seller has to do is check ID. If the ID says "no sale" then it's on the seller if he continues - knowing it to be illegal.
No data collected, no additional department of .Gov, No tax dollars needed to keep it up, no delays when the computers are down, etc.
If the purpose is to keep things out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them...fine, control THEM not us. And not the inanimate objects.

We have the right to keep and bear arms - but not the right to discharge them indiscriminately.

All evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing. Gun control leaves that as their only option.

 

[Vibe]

VaniB ... I intend no sarcasm in this, but where is the evidence of felons buying ARs at gun shows, illegally? In Vermont they are trying to pass a new law requiring background checks on all gun sales, even to friends and family, by stating the need to stop criminals from buying guns at gun shows. I've been to many gun shows, bought and sold guns in the parking lot, and to my knowledge never seen a "criminal" doing that. Is there real evidence of this?

I'd wager one would see much more of that by criminals outbidding the police at a gun "buy back".

 

[Chism G]

"Privacy"

My question in post#4 was related to privacy.

On the issue of privacy.There are data bases out there that most of us don't even realize exist. When you VOLUNTARILY give your personal information to a third party,you automatically lose control of who has access to that information. And yes,that includes Medical records.

Surprisingly detailed Personal information, can be accessed on the internet. Collecting/ Establishing a data base is not a privacy violation. What the data is used for and how it's used, could be interpreted as a violation. However, When that data base is created by the Government,they set the boundaries.The Government decides how much intrusion is needed for the promotion of legitimate Government interests. Those interests include,but are not limited to,protecting US citizens from terrorist threats and acts.

In some instances,it becomes necessary for the Government to come up with a plan(s) that they feel will help protect us from ourselves,( i.e. AWB). It doesn't matter if these plans work and most times, they don't. The architects of the plan(Politicians) have to pretend that they have the right solution. Why? because their constituency demands nothing less.You simply cannot ignore public outcry for action. That's how elections are won. It's not fair,but it is what it is and there is no change in sight.

These are just my feelings on this issue.


Glenn

 

[Joe Salt]

Let me say this again! I live in NEW YORK STATE, have a CC permit [unrestricted] If I owned a BLACK Gun which I don't, I would not have a problem with putting it on my pistol permit. Just so they would leave me the hell alone.They already have my finger prints, back ground check, and mental check. So I should be able to go into any gun shop in the Country show my pistol permit and drivers licence and buy anything I need. But no we have Idiots that no absolutely nothing about how to piss the criminals off, like 10 years in jail for any gun crime.

Joe Salt

 

[Fred J]

Let me be

I say no to the instant background check. Let me make that decision, as to who I want to sell or give a gun to. I know more about who I won't give one to than the government.

 

[GerryM]

Thar Brady bill is bogus. It solves nothing. Gun contol is a bogus make you feel good law that resticts the second ammendment rights.
It Government control of the masses. They fear a revolution by the masses takeing over their high paying cushey job.
They are an Elite class of would be do gooders. Jerrys right.
Back ground check finger prints and collected data , Now they know who owns what and where to confiscate it,

 

[vicvanb]

The nra once endorsed universal background checks

Wayne LaPierre testified (in 1999 I think) that the NRA endorsed universal background checks for all firearms sales including gun shows. I recently saw the tape of his testimony and he left no doubt about their endorsement. Now, of course, the NRA has changed its mind.