[kswiss]

like the title says, that would mean universal backround checks and that would require FULL REGISTRATION.


not sure how i feel about this

[Atlas]

You aren't sure??

No registration!!!

[Pilotdude3407]

A background check is a background check...registration is registration. One is good without the other...they don't go hand in hand

[Gun Shark]

Honestly, I like background checks for everyone, to me, that just makes sense. A poster here or on another forum suggested a NICS check at the door of every gun show. I think this is a pretty good idea at eliminating the "gun show loophole"


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[TrybalRage]

So called Universal background checks would have not prevented a single one of these recent shootings that have been big on the news.

Sandy Hook - bought legally
Colorado movie theater - bought legally
NY firemen on Christmas - bought legally by a third party


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[kswiss]

Originally Posted by Atlas

You aren't sure??

No registration!!!

i agree

[kswiss]

Originally Posted by Pilotdude3407

A background check is a background check...registration is registration. One is good without the other...they don't go hand in hand

for universal backround checks to work they have to go hand in hand,

otherwise how else would they track the movement and owenership of them

[HexHead]

Originally Posted by Pilotdude3407

A background check is a background check...registration is registration. One is good without the other...they don't go hand in hand

Theoretically you're correct. But once every transfer has been recorded through a background check, it's a simple matter to require that information be retained in a database. De facto registration.

Universal background checks are just the first step down that slippery slope, because it sounds so reasonable.

[Kingarthurhk]

Some crazy lady was on FOX News last night demanding univeral registration and permanent records so they could figure out where the "arsentals" were for seizure.

My response, I want to know everything about this woman, and I want it to be a permanent record. Every place she goes, everyone she knows, everyone she associates with, and I want it to be a permanenet record. Why? She is a clear and present threat to the Bill of Rights. We ought to know everything about her, right?

Yeah, that is about as palatible as what she wants.

[JimBean]

Originally Posted by kswiss

like the title says, that would mean universal backround checks and that would require FULL REGISTRATION.


not sure how i feel about this

I have a better proposal.
Require a pass/fail system check.
Here is the most uninvasive idea I could come up with to overhaul the current inefficient background check system. No solution is going to be perfect in everyone's opinion, however a better process will help. A universal pass/fail check station that verifies felon and mental status. This system could work for verifying gun buyers, babysitters, new employee applications, specific school program admissions, and much more. The way it could work is a federal agency sets up an office at multiple locations in every state. Anyone can show up with state ID to have one initial background check completed which is not connected to any specific reason. For our purposes, lets call the check system pass/fail. The person submitting to the initial check is hand and thumb scanned for prints on a digital scanner. The agency keeps a file with the prints and all personal information. This really is not that much different that a drivers license file kept at a DMV. The next part is the controversial part. All mental health care institutions should report patients that are in fact a danger to themselves or society. A once a month update of the mental health institutions and a daily update for new reported felons should be enough. The pass/fail system is pretty simple. Once someone has done an intial background check at a state location,anytime an instant check is required or necessary the person can go to a scan station with whoever wants to verify and place a hand print and thumbprint to retrieve a pass or fail. Police stations, schools, employers, FFL gun dealers and so on can keep verification scan stations to instantly check anyone with no delay and no identity mistake. No government records of gun sales could be assumed because the system would check pass or fail on far more than gun purchases. For example, the pass fail check can't determine if the check is for a nanny, a student, an employee, or a gun buyer. The pass or fail appears on a computer screen with only the person's name and digital image of a face. How much less invasive can we make it? So, if I want to sell someone a firearm I meet them at a pass/fail scanner station. Hand prints are verified and a pass or fail is determined by a green or red flag with a face image and name. This would require overhauling the current system and might be the lesser of all evils.

[Bruce M]

Even if there was registration, what would that really tell people that
they don't already know? A list of all the homes in Montana or parts of Kentucky or rural Arizona that have guns in them? I can do that now. For practical purposes it's ALL of them. Who owns a gun in NYC or Boston? Information has essentially already been recorded.

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by Bruce M

.. Information has essentially already been recorded.

Not for everyone..
I've never signed a single document related to my firearms..
Ever.

[WarCry]

Originally Posted by HexHead

Theoretically you're correct. But once every transfer has been recorded through a background check, it's a simple matter to require that information be retained in a database. De facto registration.

Universal background checks are just the first step down that slippery slope, because it sounds so reasonable.

Background checks are also not transfer records. The Federal form 4473 has the firearms listed, but that stays with the seller. When they call to do a background check, they're checking on ME, not telling anyone what I'm buying. If I buy one or 15 guns at the time of sale, they're only doing one background check, so it is not a "de facto" registration.

The idea of running an NICS check at the door for admission to a gun show is probably not practical, but it's an interesting idea. I don't think there's a rampant issue of folks getting admission and then grabbing guns and running out the door is there?

Anyway, my point is that a background check is NOT the same thing as a transfer record (other than the document at the seller) and is not the same thing as registration.

[2bgop]

Originally Posted by Gun Shark

Honestly, I like background checks for everyone, to me, that just makes sense. A poster here or on another forum suggested a NICS check at the door of every gun show. I think this is a pretty good idea at eliminating the "gun show loophole"


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

It is a horrible trap. The reason it will be main component of the Biden proposal is because it sounds so reasonable. It will absolutely backdoor registration.

[fgutie35]

In my opinion, I think this should be left to the states. For example; Texas, could require for buyers an sellers to do a tranfer of ownership form which will stay in a data base until such weapon change hands and another form is filled for the new owner. Just like buying and selling vehicles. Such form should be accompanied of another form from a physciatric doctor chosen by the buyer on buyer's health insurance company, where the doctor signs and states that the buyer is mentally sound and safe to aquire a firearm. Wherever that gun goes, it can be tracked and kept out of the hands of a gangbanger or cartel member. I also strongly believe in random check points to search for illegal firearms. Just like the ones they already do for drink and drive campaings.

[spork]

No to universal background checks. We need to fight for every inch and not give in on anything. The Democrats, the RINOs, and a few among us who would pretend to be our friends will continue to trade off our rights, one or two at a time.

Universal backgroud checks=one step closer to universal registration.

[2bgop]

Originally Posted by fgutie35

In my opinion, I think this should be left to the states. For example; Texas, could require for buyers an sellers to do a tranfer of ownership form which will stay in a data base until such weapon change hands and another form is filled for the new owner. Just like buying and selling vehicles. Such form should be accompanied of another form from a physciatric doctor chosen by the buyer on buyer's health insurance company, where the doctor signs and states that the buyer is mentally sound and safe to aquire a firearm. Wherever that gun goes, it can be tracked and kept out of the hands of a gangbanger or cartel member. I also strongly believe in random check points to search for illegal firearms. Just like the ones they already do for drink and drive campaings.

Dianne is that you???

[KK40384]

Originally Posted by fgutie35

In my opinion, I think this should be left to the states. For example; Texas, could require for buyers an sellers to do a tranfer of ownership form which will stay in a data base until such weapon change hands and another form is filled for the new owner. Just like buying and selling vehicles. Such form should be accompanied of another form from a physciatric doctor chosen by the buyer on buyer's health insurance company, where the doctor signs and states that the buyer is mentally sound and safe to aquire a firearm. Wherever that gun goes, it can be tracked and kept out of the hands of a gangbanger or cartel member. I also strongly believe in random check points to search for illegal firearms. Just like the ones they already do for drink and drive campaings.

I seriously hope that I sense a lot of sarcasm in this post otherwise you should be Feinstein's advisor


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[janice6]

Registration is an obtuse way of writing confiscation.

Absolutely not. Not acceptable.

[jay29]

Registration precedes confiscation.

[spork]

Originally Posted by fgutie35

In my opinion, I think this should be left to the states. For example; Texas, could require for buyers an sellers to do a tranfer of ownership form which will stay in a data base until such weapon change hands and another form is filled for the new owner. Just like buying and selling vehicles. Such form should be accompanied of another form from a physciatric doctor chosen by the buyer on buyer's health insurance company, where the doctor signs and states that the buyer is mentally sound and safe to aquire a firearm. Wherever that gun goes, it can be tracked and kept out of the hands of a gangbanger or cartel member. I also strongly believe in random check points to search for illegal firearms. Just like the ones they already do for drink and drive campaings.

I am trying to give you the benefit of a doubt and assume that you left off your sarcasm smilie.

[kswiss]

Originally Posted by jay29

Registration precedes confiscation.

exactly why i hate it,


and why NOBODY should register ANYTHING

[NickC50310]

Originally Posted by spork

No to universal background checks. We need to fight for every inch and not give in on anything. The Democrats, the RINOs, and a few among us who would pretend to be our friends will continue to trade off our rights, one or two at a time.

Universal backgroud checks=one step closer to universal registration.

In a perfect world thats true and great but anyone with a brain can see we arent getting out of this one unscathed. Our choices are going to be awb, magazine bans, universal registration, or universal background checks. Of all those things i chose the background check option as long as none of the other items i listed come into play. Obviously i would prefer no change just like everyone else here but thats not going to happen.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[Bruce M]

Originally Posted by Atlas

Not for everyone..
I've never signed a single document related to my firearms..
Ever.

You live in NYC or Boston or DC or Chicago and do not have a permit or FOID? Or are you in a less urban area? Always have paid cash for ammunition? Never posted on an internet gun foru... ohh wait. Never mind.

[ThinkMud]

removed attached quote b/c I'm not sure it's accurate... sorry.