How many members would like a firearms discussion area

I live in a state that has implemented UBCs. If you think that private transfers without background checks don't continue unabated I have a bridge to sell you. I have firearms purchased prior to the new law that I could sell or trade to anyone and there's no way to prevent me or track them back to me.

Edit: if they are effective in Canada why are handguns smuggled from the US and sold to criminals still the most commonly used class of firearms in crimes? Wouldn't a UBC stop those transfers?

 

That’s the usual talking point that makes no sense. There is no law requiring an un identified felon who spends his life keeping secretes, from buying guns now.
At least, the legal seller can force the issue with someone who refuses to give his real IDl . Btw, you don’t think all that majority of nra members know this and are willing to put up with the additional inconvenience between the good guys ? . They actually know this.

 

It is a felony for a prohibited person to purchase or possess a firearm. It is a felony to sell a firearm to a known prohibited person. If these laws were followed felons would not have guns.

It should not be a crime for a non-prohibited person to transfer a firearm to another non-prohibited person. UBCs, however, make this a crime even though no harm to society has occurred with that type of transfer.

They can do that now. It doesn't take a trip to an FFL to do so. I happen to know that my friends are not prohibited persons. Why should I be required to take the time to go to an FFL during business hours and pay up to $50 for a transfer? Why don't we give private citizens direct access to NICS?

Why would they be willing to put up with inconvenience and cost, and the possibility of becoming a criminal, when they know that bad guys selling to bad guys won't use the process so there's no reduction in illegal gun trafficking and when we know that when the government actually catch a felon trying to buy a gun we convict them of that felony less than 0.1% of the time?

If I buy a gun from a friend without a background check, how can law enforcement prove it?

 

There is no way for yourself to actually prove those who responded to the poll were NRA members, as opposed to those who simply claimed to be. It is the word of yourself in this matter. Get to proving the matter.

 

Explain how supposedly "universal background checks" can actually be enforced without the registration of every single firearm in existence. What are the mechanics that allows law enforcement to determine when some random firearm was purchased, where it was purchased, and whether or not it was done in compliance with the background check requirement.

This position is supported by yourself, so get to defending it and demonstrating that it is indeed valid.

 

Explain how it supposedly "works" as is being claimed by yourself.

Explain what legitimate, compelling interest government has in maintaining a list of every single firearm, and every single firearm owner, in the united states.

because a legally owned firearm can never be used in the commission of a murder of a law enforcement officer, correct?

 

Then why is such an individual actually free in society if they pose such a danger? Explain such.

 

Oh, that’s your NRA talking point again. Maybe you can tell the good guys just by mental telepathy, no one else can. You can tell which individuals aren’t felons without a background check ? You’re amazing . They must all be friends of yours. I wonder why we have to bother the good guys for IDs and pat downs before they board a plane either. So, which guys do you think are honest just by looking at them ? The white ones. Gee, I wonder why FFL dealers keep pestering the same gun buyers on Thursday who already bought a gun on Monday. It’s called a regulation and it’s the only way you can be sure the buyer who was a good guy on Monday, didn’t have incriminating material placed in his background on Wednesday. Now you’ll just move on to another mundane comment.

 

No. Do your own research. Explain how it doesn’t work. We already know the US leads the world in gun violence per capita.
Explain such...whatever that means.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/...ath-rates-the-us-is-in-a-different-world.html

 

Don’t keep repeating the same BS. How does anyone know anyone is a prohibited buyer ? Magic ?

Felons already buy guns illegally from legal sellers. It’s the seller who should be required to have a BC by the buyer, just like a an FFL dealer. Of course, Illinois has a novel solution. It’s called a purchasing permit that is good for a length of time. It requires a background check. Illinois residence say it’s very convenient and you don’t have to pay for a BC with every purchase.....just go to the head of line or show a seller. Everyone is covered at minimal expense. Of course, you guys know more then places that do this cause you want the luxury of selling guns in private sales to felons.....just by NOT asking them for any ID.

 

In a sane world, my carry permit should allow me to purchase a weapon from a dealer or private sale because it already shows I’m a legal owner. If permits were issued under federal authority, reciprocity could be more likely be nation wide. These are huge advantages to legal gun owners and carriers. Instead of working to make it easy to sell your guns to felons, you should be working to make it easier for law abiding citizens who carry every day to make legal purchase easier and have these rights uninfringed nation wide. . No, you Nra lakeys want to follow their dumb ideas and make it harder for law abiding gun owners to carry and easier for criminal NRA policies to keep you uninformed.
Your questions are repetitious, uninformed and show how brain washed by the NRA you guys are.

 

It is the claim of yourself that such an approach actually works, despite their being no evidence to show that it does. The burden of proof is on yourself, and yourself exclusively, to demonstrate the validity of your claims, rather than demanding others prove you wrong.

 

The lack of an actual response on yourself has been noted.

Now get back to demonstrating why a convicted felon, who cannot be trusted with legal firearms ownership because of the danger such poses to society, should be allowed to walk around free in society to begin with.

 

It is not a sane world, however. It is very much a chaotic world without rule of law.

And yet it is yourself who cannot explain how background check requirements for private purchases can actually be enforced, when neither government nor law enforcement knows who owns what firearms.

How is it known if a firearm sale is performed without a background check for the purpose of enforcing the requirement? What is the system that is in place that alerts the proper authorities to when a firearm has changed hands in an illegal manner? Explain how such works.

 

You still avoid the question. How do you know an intended buyer in secondary sales is a felon or not without a background check ? They are not required to even give their name !

 

It does not matter, because it is of no relevance. Such is not even known in a primary sale that goes through a mandatory background check, because straw purchases render the background check process completely useless, and are extremely easy to facilitate and orchestrate. Where and how a felon or other prohibited individual may illegally acquire a firearm is of neither relevance, nor importance, because it ultimately does not change anything.

Now. Once again, get back to demonstrating why a convicted felon, who cannot be trusted with legal firearms ownership because of the danger such poses to society, should be allowed to walk around free in society to begin with.

 

Oh, not relevant ? You just keep asking, >why should it be a problem in secondary sales if two good guys conduct a gun purchase. >
You’re the one who keeps assuming a secondary purchase is always between two good guys. How do you know they’re good guys without a back ground check ?
All you do is keep repeating the problem of straw purchases. Guess what, that’s where secondary sales and transfer of guns between felons and legal buyers takes place.

 

Guess what - a straw purchase involves a background check by the buyer, who then illegally transfers the firearm to a prohibited person.

Regarding private sales, how do the authorities know that any such transaction takes place and how would a law requiring background checks for private sales be enforced? Will it stop bad guy to bad guy transactions?

 

Sounds like you’re in favor of putting all convicted felons, even those who have served time, back in jail. Once convicted, we deny voting rights and the 2A....because our rights are NOT all absolute. We also deny the privilege of driving a car after enough traffic offenses. We also deny Trump loans when he has so many failed finances. That forced him to accept money from Russia like the NRA has, to finance their criminal activities. .
Few, still went to jail.

 

Are you in luv with the word “ such” ? Inquiring minds want to know. It makes it hard to know what you’re talking about.....it’s double speak.

 

Correct. It is neither relevant, nor important, how and where a prohibited individual manages to procure a firearm. It makes no difference with regard to law enforcement doing its job, or with prosecuting the individual. Whatever the avenue utilized, whatever the method selected, it is still a felony offense, both in the acquisition, and the possession.

What difference does it make? Prosecutions for unlawful firearms possession and acquisition in the united states are exceedingly rare, more often than not the charges are dropped by the prosecutor, indicating it is not even worthwhile for such to be classified as crimes.

And they render background checks irrelevant and useless, because the one filling out the paperwork will sell the firearms to a prohibited individual without a second thought, and simply claim it was stolen if it is ever linked back to them.

 

Do they demonstrate that they can and will offend again? If the answer is yes, then there is no legitimate reason for them to be let out in the first place.

If rights are truly not absolute, then there is no legal problem with keeping convicted felons detained for the duration of their lives.

Off topic and irrelevant.

 

The lack of an actual, legitimate response on the part of yourself has been noted. It is apparent that the presence of yourself in this discussion is devoid of a legitimate merit, and is simply to stir things up by introducing off topic nonsense to try and derail a legitimate discussion about an area reserved for firearms discussions absent of politics.

 

Because I know that my friends and family aren't prohibited persons, and that anyone with a CCW is not a prohibited person.

 

So, it seems you’re restricting secondary sales to only friends and family of the seller and those with a permit. That sounds much more restrictive then any liberal has proposed.