-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
Shower thoughts on Universal Background Checks
- Thread starter jimireece
- Start date
In the past I have asked to see a permit, and have had others ask to see a permit.
I am not a good judge of people and have little to no social skills. I would not be able to distinguish a serial killer from a gentle, kind person. Therefore, during this time of relative peace I outsource that work to The State for people with which I have no history. This helps protect me a bit legally (or at least I feel that way), and gives me a little peace of mind that I'm not selling to a known serial killer. If or when the balloon goes up my rules will likely change. No information is retained by me or submitted to the State during these transactions.
However, Universal Background Checks is a different thing. I CHOOSE to ask to see a CCW, just like I choose to wear a seatbelt while in a car. I don't think the State should mandate either. If a seller chooses to see the CCW, or even goes all out and requires a complete background check, well, it's their product and you can always buy from someone else. However, the State requiring a background check on EVERY transaction regardless of seller is a different thing.
Also, UBC will ONLY lead to registration; it is the necessary next step. You could not be prosecuted for transferring a firearm without a UBC if the State could not confirm beyond a reasonable doubt that the gun store didn't just lose the paperwork. Since one can't prove a negative the rap would be easy to beat. Therefore, a registration that YOU are required to verify each and every year is the only way for prosecution. Put it all on you to prove innocence. So I don't support UBC.
On a side note, I think everyone should have a CCW, whether they use it for purchases or not. The more CCWs in existence the more our government overlords may support our carry rights. Without SOME data it would be easy for "them" to start thinking "ah, nobody cares about gun rights." But when 38% of the voters in their district have CCWs then their opinions on gun legislation are typically different.
This is one of the reasons I still have an NRA membership; it's all about numbers. And since they are the "face" of the pro-gun movement (real or imagined) I like to inflate their numbers. I then also support other, better, pro-gun organizations.
I am not a good judge of people and have little to no social skills. I would not be able to distinguish a serial killer from a gentle, kind person. Therefore, during this time of relative peace I outsource that work to The State for people with which I have no history. This helps protect me a bit legally (or at least I feel that way), and gives me a little peace of mind that I'm not selling to a known serial killer. If or when the balloon goes up my rules will likely change. No information is retained by me or submitted to the State during these transactions.
However, Universal Background Checks is a different thing. I CHOOSE to ask to see a CCW, just like I choose to wear a seatbelt while in a car. I don't think the State should mandate either. If a seller chooses to see the CCW, or even goes all out and requires a complete background check, well, it's their product and you can always buy from someone else. However, the State requiring a background check on EVERY transaction regardless of seller is a different thing.
Also, UBC will ONLY lead to registration; it is the necessary next step. You could not be prosecuted for transferring a firearm without a UBC if the State could not confirm beyond a reasonable doubt that the gun store didn't just lose the paperwork. Since one can't prove a negative the rap would be easy to beat. Therefore, a registration that YOU are required to verify each and every year is the only way for prosecution. Put it all on you to prove innocence. So I don't support UBC.
On a side note, I think everyone should have a CCW, whether they use it for purchases or not. The more CCWs in existence the more our government overlords may support our carry rights. Without SOME data it would be easy for "them" to start thinking "ah, nobody cares about gun rights." But when 38% of the voters in their district have CCWs then their opinions on gun legislation are typically different.
This is one of the reasons I still have an NRA membership; it's all about numbers. And since they are the "face" of the pro-gun movement (real or imagined) I like to inflate their numbers. I then also support other, better, pro-gun organizations.
I agree with you about somethings. Sell what you have however and with whatever stipulations you want. It is your property to sell at your leisure. If I don't like your terms, I can shop elsewhere.
I would push back a little bit on WCL. The only people that have a WCL are people with weapons, primarily firearms. No one goes through the trouble if they aren't at least interested in carrying. So... if a government wanted to see who has a firearm, wouldn't the first place they would look is the receipts from WCL? It won't identify every firearm owner but that list will net a big chunk of them. While giving data and support to good gun advocacy groups is helpful, wouldn't membership to the advocacy group be a better numbers game over government background checks?
Thank you everyone that has commented, it has been interesting hearing different perspectives.
I would push back a little bit on WCL. The only people that have a WCL are people with weapons, primarily firearms. No one goes through the trouble if they aren't at least interested in carrying. So... if a government wanted to see who has a firearm, wouldn't the first place they would look is the receipts from WCL? It won't identify every firearm owner but that list will net a big chunk of them. While giving data and support to good gun advocacy groups is helpful, wouldn't membership to the advocacy group be a better numbers game over government background checks?
Thank you everyone that has commented, it has been interesting hearing different perspectives.
From the NSSF:
"the glaring problem with “Universal Background Checks” is they are unenforceable without a mandatory national firearm registry, which federal law expressly prohibits. Law abiding gun owners are well aware that historically firearm registration leads to confiscation."
"the glaring problem with “Universal Background Checks” is they are unenforceable without a mandatory national firearm registry, which federal law expressly prohibits. Law abiding gun owners are well aware that historically firearm registration leads to confiscation."
Most people want to see something that shows that they are selling to a resident of Georgia. Also weeds out the less brazen Felons.
Also why would you “push” hard about what or how a person sells their own property.
Conditions don’t suit you move on.
Aww, cool. Myself I never make a mistake, or am unclear in my meaning, ever… LOL
I agree with that perspective on UBC as a path to firearm registry.
My thoughts are that it might be very easy for an enterprising government to convert lists of WCL holders into a defacto list of ardent weapon owners. So should we as private sellers in the gun community advocate for evidence of background checks before a sale?
I totally get Ken Fords point. I lock the doors on my empty, near worthless truck to deter the lazy/opportunistic criminal. I don't think I would install government low jacks (if offered) to prevent a theft of my truck.
Thanks for the input.
Yes if they only would.
Valid point
Similar threads
