I'm unaware of any court ruling. And i don't support it. I'm trying to put things into perspective. You extreme hard liners give the rest of society the impression gun all gun owners are nuts. It's not a good image to portray. same way they do with FFL's, which doesn't have registration m
UBC's didn't get through congress because they know that they cannot be enforced between to private parties with out knowing who owns what. I sell my gun for cash to my friend.... no one knows but us. We dont have to do a background check. If all guns were registered like cars, then we would be forced to do the background check. As is stands, UBCs cannot be enforced. Are you for creating a central database of a guns so that UBCs can be put in place?
There is no need for registration or a central database. Just like there isn't one for FFL's. There is no reason why you can't be required to keep a log book like FFL's are required to. - - - Updated - - - This doesn't even make sense m
If know one know what guns I own, or if I own any guns at all, ..... how do they make me keep a log book? FFL's have BATF oversight thats why they must follow the law regarding background checks. They do have log books. They cannot require me to do something if they don't even know I have it. This was precicely the argument in congress that caused UBC legislation to fail.
Same way they make FFL's. There isn't a difference. FFL's can acquire firearms without ATF knowing if they wanted to. But that's just dumb. If caught theynaremin big trouble. Same for you. Ubc failed because there wasn't any real political support for it. NRA and fun manufacturer lobbies wouldn't allow it.
There's no national database that links a specific firearm to a crime but that linkage is often established during the prosecution of a criminal case where a firearm is used. If "Criminal X" states they obtained a firearm from "Person A" then we have testimony that can establish that the transfer could have occured. If "Person A" purchased the firearm from an FFL then there is a record of the purshase establishing that "Person A" did, in fact, own the firearm at one point in time. So we don't have a national registry of firearms, and I'd oppose that, but evidence and testimony alone in a court of law can establish "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" that can lead to a conviction. Whether indemnification against criminal prosecution by the voluntary use of the FBI NICS database would encourage people to use the system or not becomes irrelevant because millions of gun owners would voluntarily use it anyway. That means millions of law abiding gun owners could be certain of the fact that they're not selling a firearm to a potentially dangerous person and that alone warrants the background check. And if they choose not to use the system and do transfer ownership of a firearm to a prohibited person then they can be held accountable because they were complicit in the felony transfer of a firearm. Are you opposed to a person being held criminally responsible for complicity in commiting a felony? It might be hard to prove that they tranferred the firearm to a prohibited person but if the evidence does exist then shouldn't they be held accountable for their complicity in the commission of a felony? Holding a person responsible for a criminal act, especially a felony, is not something that should be opposed by anyone on either side of the gun debates. This is where the anti-gun advocates fail in their proposals because they demand manditory background checks often with a "pricetag" involved. For example in WA, where I live, mandatory background checks are now in place and it requires those conducting the transfer to use an FFL that charges a fee. As a buyer or seller I'm sure as hell not going to pay someone else to run a background check when the FBI could open up the NICS database for free access if Congress approved it. I don't believe there is any logical reason to not allow private individuals free access to the FBI NICS database so why hasn't Congress authorized this. Yes, it could cost a few million dollars for the FBI to update it's computer systems to allow this but that is a small price to pay for the American People. It is something that I believe all members of Congress could vote for and it would be appreciated by the majority of Americans that support background checks. Allowing free voluntary access to the FBI NICS database for private individuals is a common sense action by government that cannot be logically opposed by either side in the gun debate.
Why would you need to keep a log book except for insurance purposes which is why I have all of my firearms (with serial numbers, purchase information documented on the bill of sale, and the estimated values) recorded in my personal records. Of course if purchased new then the FFL has a record of the firearm and the purchase. I would actually suggest that the law abiding gun owner has a logical reason for keeping a log of all their firearms regardless of any other considerations. I have the original bill of sale for every firearm I've ever purchased and even the transfer documentation for firearms I received as the heir to an estate. I also have a copy of every bill of sale for every firearm I've ever sold/transferred to another person. No one ever forced me to do this but it always made sense to do. Why do people seem to believe that they should only do something based upon a government mandate? As noted I keep complete records of my firearms from when I acquire them to when I transfer them to someone else because it's in my personal interests to do so. I don't require a government mandate to do what I need to do for personal reasons. Of note if we had free voluntary access to the FBI NICS database and we ran a background check then the "tracking number" would logically be included on the bill of sale that both the buyer and seller would keep a copy of.
I have always said that I don't oppose voluntary use of the NICS system if they made it available to the public.
How would government enforce universal background checks even with registration? The system can easily be undone if someone chooses to report the firearm stolen, after selling to a known prohibited individual.
Because such firearms are usually destroyed after the case has been settled. A firearm cannot be entered into a database if the police do not have it.
Federally licensed firearm dealers have a fixed place of business, and a license to engage in the business of selling firearms. The average individual has neither of these. They cannot be compelled to abide by business rules when they are not engaging in a specific business. They cannot be compelled to maintain business records or what was sold to whom, because it is not their primary method of income. They have no license to be revoked for improper business practices.
Ok? Of course they can. They is nothing stating individuals can't be held to the same standards. Must keep a log of all acquisition and dispositions, as well as a form 4473. Of course they can. They have firearms, and the ability to own them. If they fail to keep,the proper records, they could lose that.
How can I be compelled to do anything? Our government has no idea what of if I own any guns. Same as any gangbanger.
Are you serious? and if found in possession of a firearm you can't show was purchased legally, with background check performed, you would be subject to criminal penalties. And if someone is in possession of a firearm they received from you, and you don't have an acquisition and disposition log and 4473 showing a NICS transaction number for the person who bought it, you would be subject to criminal penalties. Just like FFL's.
Subject to what criminal penalties? How would you propose going about applying criminal penalties, when it is impossible to prove when the firearm was purchased, and could have easily been purchased before any mandate was enforced? Unless the firearm was erroneously reported as stolen after the sale, to relieve the seller of any liability, or responsibility. All one would have to do, is state that the firearm was stolen while it was being examined prior to any attempt at conducting a background check. If the report is erroneous, the seller could easily claim that the buyer pulled a hidden handgun to commit an armed robbery, and with their focus being on the firearm pointed at their head, they can't recall any other details of how to identify the suspect.
After the mandate all firearms would need to be logged into the individuals bound book. Yes, of course a person could lie. And if caught they would face criminal charges. And if the investigation showed the seller lied, that is fraud. And if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their ass.
Why is it your obsessed with controlling guns? Why not have the same totalitarian nonsense with hammers and knives? I have no intention of being ruled in such a way. These control freak desires do nothing to stop or crime. All they do is create criminals out of honest responsible gun owners.
in other words, you want to make people into criminals for not following idiotic and unconstitutional bookkeeping laws
One of the goals of the gun banners is if they cannot ban guns per se, they want to disqualify as many people as possible from owning guns legally. The odious Lautenberg Amendment was one example of that and the next step is trying to impose affirmative duties on gun owners: duties they know and hope many gun owners will ignore 25 years ago or so, Cincinnati passed an AWB. I moved out of the city when it passed but it required you to register "assault weapons" in order to keep them. LESS THAN 100 were registered. I knew for a fact that many thousands of such firearms were owned within the city limits. I had been counsel for two big FFL dealers in the greater Cincinnati area and these two dealers had sold well over 2000 AR 15 or similar rifles to people whose addresses were within the city. and that was only two gunshops. Most people didn't bother-not out of some intent to defy a law that was later struck down, but due to ignorance or inertia. The same thing will happen if the idiotic Universal background checks are passed. Lots of people in rural areas aren't going to bother with such silliness. thus, the Gun banners hope to turn people into criminals for not complying with affirmative duties imposed on them by gun banners. and if those people are caught, they are now felons unable to legally own guns. its part of the plan that the gun owners have entertained for years
Unless government gains authority to conduct home meetings without the need for a warrant, there would be no way of enforcing such a provision. How would it be shown? How would it be proven? It would come down to the word of the seller against the word of the reported criminal. Who is more likely to believed in such a case? The member Bryan went into an in depth explanation of this exact scenario some time ago. He presented a sound argument for why such a proposal was doomed to utter failure from the very beginning. It can be read here. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=405428&page=4&p=1064928575#post1064928575 The member Bryan is a senior prosecuting attorney for the state of Virginia. He is very knowledgeable about what he speaks. And he is one of the few people that I respect enough to ask his opinion when it is needed, even if his presented answer will invalidate the argumentative position that I am supporting at the time, as the truth is far more important than being victorious in a debate. The presented arguments are not unbelievable fantasies with no basis in reality. They are everyday events that have indeed happened.
Huh? I'm not arguing FOR the implementation. I'm pointing out there's nothing unconstitutional about it. Mindless rant
