If you're convicted of a crime in Idaho, yes. Being arrested isn't sufficient to take away rights. A conviction (or plea bargain) is needed.
Arrested isn't sufficient to take away gun rights. If you're convicted, yes, Idaho mails FL (probably snail mail) that they have convicted one of their CCW permit holders. A felony is a major crime.
being wanted for murder or rape is. no one with a warrant for their arrest should be able to buy a gun.
If only criminals and straw purchasers felt the same way we do. From 18 USC 922g: It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person— indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
My point was that criminals in the business of selling guns to other criminals don't care if their customers are wanted for any crimes.
what is obvious is UBGCs are worthless in stopping criminals getting guns from people who know they are criminals
If it is good enough for the legal exercise of one constitutional right, there is not a single legitimate reason the same standard should not be applied to each and every constitutional right.
How many will they be able to respond to on a daily basis? Exactly what percent can they realistically cover? Will they be able to identify a private firearms sale on the basis of initials and shorthand? Will they automatically know that "CZ" means a firearm?
UBC, if followed strictly by the Patriotic Public, would mean criminals can ONLY get guns from other criminals. right now they can get them from any private sale
Even if that's a misdemeanor warrant for a crime that doesn't disallow gun ownership? Say, I have a warrant against me for petty theft--I stole a $1 candy bar from a store (not robbed, but stole). That's a misdemeanor, and if convicted of it, won't stop me from being able to own a gun.
First, I have no problem with UBC if it consists of the ability for private sellers to do NICS checks. That said, I also don't think it will prevent more than one or two criminals from buying guns. Criminals aren't going to gun shows to buy guns from clueless private sellers. Gun shows are public places, and every one I've ever been to had off-duty cops in uniform at the entry gates. A gun show is the last place I would go if I were a criminal. Too many witnesses, too many cops. Criminals (per the U of Chicago study) mainly get guns from people they know, not strangers.
Meaning that what is being proposed by yourself, is ultimately being admitted as worthless if the public at large simply chooses not to abide with it. Therefore it is worthless. Even then, it is still an illegal act.
If there is no enforcement mechanism, which there is not, then there is no motivating reason for the public to actually abide by it.
The police don't have access, they aren't staffed to handle tens of millions of checks and they don't want people bringing guns to the station.
Exactly how many miles must one be legally required to drive outside of their city of residence, simply to sell one of their privately owned firearms to another private individual, before the requirement would qualify as amounting to harassment?
