I'm apposed to this on a 10A basis. The Feds cannot mandate laws regulating inTRAstate commerce. SCOTUS has been very consistent on this in the past. What I choose to do with my lawful, personal, PRIVATE property is none of the Feds business.Behind the histrionics, a consensus is forming on universal background checks
Members of the group, which includes Republicans Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. . .
So in addition to these two GOP Senators (Coburn and Kirk), we have Chuck Grassley and GOP Rep. Phil Gingrey, both of whom have expressed support for expanding the background check system. GOP Rep. Paul Ryan has also expressed support, which means it could very well get a vote in the House of Representatives. And what about other red and purple state Dems up for reelection in 2014, all of whom were supposed to run for their lives from any gun reform measure? Well, senators Mark Warner of Virginia and Tim Johnson of South Dakota both support background checks. And as noted above, Joe Manchin of West Virginia is working with this emerging bipartisan group reported on by USA Today.
Is the sellout starting to form?
Moderators: mpallett, mr fixit, bakerjw, renegade
- L1A1Rocker
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 3578
- Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:40 pm
- Location: Texas Hill Country
Is the sellout starting to form?
Behind the histrionics, a consensus is forming on universal background checks
-
- Senior Silent Operator
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 11:24 am
- Location: Sc
Re: Is the sellout starting to form?
Personally I would not sell any gun to someone i did not know, because I would feel terrible if that person turned out to be crazy and went and killed someone. I would personally not have a problem selling a gun to a close friend that I know. While that is what I believe, if someone else wants to sell a gun to another person, it does not bother me. If you are willing to take that risk, that is your choice. Universal background checks probably would prevent some unauthorized people from buying a gun. But it could also place us on a slippery slope, if univrrsal background checks are ok, why not fingerprints? Not trying to start an argument or anything, this is just how I see things. Yay for Amendment 1 and 2.
Re: Is the sellout starting to form?
I don't exactly disagree on 10A... but....L1A1Rocker wrote:I'm apposed to this on a 10A basis. The Feds cannot mandate laws regulating inTRAstate commerce. SCOTUS has been very consistent on this in the past. What I choose to do with my lawful, personal, PRIVATE property is none of the Feds business.
1. This is going through in some form. Everyone has been parroting the 40% of all sales bullshit which is a stat from a phone survey from 251 people in 1993. None the less, it's apparently perceived truth.
2. We all know damn well private sale is not our first go-to, we have almost all had those moment when doing a private sale that you have to second guess who you are selling to.
3. Big positive.... We'll never have to head about the gun show loophole again!!! They'll have to come up with different retarded excuses of why guns are in criminal hands.
4. Yea, it's none of the govs business, but... no one has a problem with NICS and it's not like there isn't already a centralized list at DARPA or NSA or DHS, or whatever. So, I agree, it's crap. It's not the end of the world, we already have the same thing in place as far as the negatives go. The positives are some assholes in theory could be kept from getting a gun (I had a private sale fall through when I googled his name and found out he had recently been arrested for impersonating a doctor at a pharmacy, he was going to trail the next week, I don't think he was dangerous, but he was fishing Armslist for private sales).
5. A lot of states have already banned private sale, there hasn't been an example of the sky falling in those states. It's stupid, yes, but it's not nearly to the same level of stupidity as AWB or mag limits. And let's everyone thank god they don't know about silencers or even mostly that the AR-10 is an even scarier "AR-47" or whatever "weapon of war" is the rage today.
It's got a good chance of getting through, and I'm certainly not going to loose sleep over it. Would I like to see the citizen have the ability to do private sale with a background check? Yes, that would be great. Won't happen. Does "universal background check" sound good? Oh you betcha. Does anyone here even do more than one or two private sales a year? Are you willing to fall on a sword to do so?
Now.... What would be sweet, is since this is such "reasonable" legislation, is to put support behind it WITH an amendment/rider that says magazine capacity can not be limited by the federal government, ever. I'd be the biggest cheerleader for it, I'd be going door to door to add support for it It's about time that compromise actually meant they have to give up something as well.
Re: Is the sellout starting to form?
este,
All very good points and I agree in principal with pretty much of all that you said. However, the liberals are not reasonable nor are they interested in facts. They use emotional hysteria and illogical arguments to try to ram their agenda down the throats of the American public.
It is really a paradox that while some of your arguments ring true, that we can't afford to open the door even a crack, because the push to ban all personal weapons has just begun. By agreeing to even small sensible changes in the system, whatever that may be, we will just be giving and not getting anything. Give an inch and they take a mile.
All very good points and I agree in principal with pretty much of all that you said. However, the liberals are not reasonable nor are they interested in facts. They use emotional hysteria and illogical arguments to try to ram their agenda down the throats of the American public.
It is really a paradox that while some of your arguments ring true, that we can't afford to open the door even a crack, because the push to ban all personal weapons has just begun. By agreeing to even small sensible changes in the system, whatever that may be, we will just be giving and not getting anything. Give an inch and they take a mile.
- continuity
- Elite Member
- Posts: 4554
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 6:39 am
- Location: Ohio
Re: Is the sellout starting to form?
F that boooshit!! A close friend lent a snub nosed revolver to his Mom for self protection. The friends lowlife drug using sister laid down on Moms bed one evening and used said snub to blow her brains all over the wall.
Should my friend be liable for verifying not only Mom's, but every family member's reasonableness to access that weapon?
Should my friend be liable for verifying not only Mom's, but every family member's reasonableness to access that weapon?
What amount of a man is composed of his own collection of experiences... and the conclusions that those experiences have allowed him to "know" for certain as "Truth"? :Ick
Re: Is the sellout starting to form?
Universal background checks = universal gun registration. That's the problem.
If they're going to make it illegal to transfer a gun without doing a background check, how will they know whether you did the background check? The honor system? No, by matching the gun's serial number to the current owner. The word for this is "registry".
And even if it's not fully implemented at first, it would be the first step. The next shooting will be followed by cries of "This could have been prevented if we just made common sense changes to the universal background check registry!" Like it or not, the 2nd Amendment was written so we could protect ourselves from tyrants. I can't imagine why we'd also want to hand those very same tyrants an itemized list of what guns we own, and where to find them.
A universal gun registry isn't by any means reasonable for free people. It's just the first step in taking them away, as we've seen time and time again in this very country. First comes registration, then comes confiscation.
Forcing everyone to go through a dealer could be one way of implementing it, and I'm sure dealers would probably support that too - especially dealers where there isn't a lot of competition. Just like insurance companies are thrilled that it'll be illegal for us to not buy their product thanks to ObamaCare. And if you're the only dealer in 200 miles, you might as well charge $100 or more per transfer. If that's your only local dealer, and you don't get along with him, I guess you're screwed then.
It is never reasonable to give up freedom to appease irrational fears - especially when the freedom you give up won't actually solve the problem they're claiming it will. And don't get suckered into the idea of "compromise" either. Compromise isn't "I want to eat all of your cake, but I guess I'll only eat half." If we're willing to give something up (I'm not, btw), then what do we get in return? This is what we get - in a few months or years or whatever, they just come back and want the rest of that cake.
We need to be loud and clear that any further restrictions are not acceptable.
If they're going to make it illegal to transfer a gun without doing a background check, how will they know whether you did the background check? The honor system? No, by matching the gun's serial number to the current owner. The word for this is "registry".
And even if it's not fully implemented at first, it would be the first step. The next shooting will be followed by cries of "This could have been prevented if we just made common sense changes to the universal background check registry!" Like it or not, the 2nd Amendment was written so we could protect ourselves from tyrants. I can't imagine why we'd also want to hand those very same tyrants an itemized list of what guns we own, and where to find them.
A universal gun registry isn't by any means reasonable for free people. It's just the first step in taking them away, as we've seen time and time again in this very country. First comes registration, then comes confiscation.
Forcing everyone to go through a dealer could be one way of implementing it, and I'm sure dealers would probably support that too - especially dealers where there isn't a lot of competition. Just like insurance companies are thrilled that it'll be illegal for us to not buy their product thanks to ObamaCare. And if you're the only dealer in 200 miles, you might as well charge $100 or more per transfer. If that's your only local dealer, and you don't get along with him, I guess you're screwed then.
It is never reasonable to give up freedom to appease irrational fears - especially when the freedom you give up won't actually solve the problem they're claiming it will. And don't get suckered into the idea of "compromise" either. Compromise isn't "I want to eat all of your cake, but I guess I'll only eat half." If we're willing to give something up (I'm not, btw), then what do we get in return? This is what we get - in a few months or years or whatever, they just come back and want the rest of that cake.
We need to be loud and clear that any further restrictions are not acceptable.
Last edited by trek45 on Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Is the sellout starting to form?
Wow... No one is talking about liability, but alright...continuity wrote:Should my friend be liable for verifying not only Mom's, but every family member's reasonableness to access that weapon?
Re: Is the sellout starting to form?
1. If you don't believe there is already at least a secret registry, you're a fool.
2. We're all NFA owners here. As someone else said last time this came up, we are the poster-boys for registration.
2. We're all NFA owners here. As someone else said last time this came up, we are the poster-boys for registration.
Re: Is the sellout starting to form?
+1000, don't give an inch. Universal background checks will not solve mass shootings or any shootings. We should be taking freedom back, not giving it up. Once its done, it will never be un-done.trek45 wrote:Universal background checks = universal gun registration. That's the problem.
If they're going to make it illegal to transfer a gun without doing a background check, how will they know whether you did the background check? The honor system? No, by matching the gun's serial number to the current owner. The word for this is "registry".
And even if it's not fully implemented at first, it would be the first step. The next shooting will be followed by cries of "This could have been prevented if we just made common sense changes to the universal background check registry!" Like it or not, the 2nd Amendment was written so we could protect ourselves from tyrants. I can't imagine why we'd also want to hand those very same tyrants an itemized list of what guns we own, and where to find them.
A universal gun registry isn't by any means reasonable for free people. It's just the first step in taking them away, as we've seen time and time again in this very country. First comes registration, then comes confiscation.
Forcing everyone to go through a dealer could be one way of implementing it, and I'm sure dealers would probably support that too - especially dealers where there isn't a lot of competition. Just like insurance companies are thrilled that it'll be illegal for us to not buy their product. And if you're the only dealer in 200 miles, you might as well charge $100 or more per transfer. If that's your only local dealer, and you don't get along with him, I guess you're screwed then.
It is never reasonable to give up freedom to appease irrational fears - especially when the freedom you give up won't actually solve the problem they're claiming it will. And don't get suckered into the idea of "compromise" either. Compromise isn't "I want to eat all of your cake, but I guess I'll only eat half." If we're willing to give something up (I'm not, btw), then what do we get in return? This is what we get - in a few months or years or whatever, they just come back and want the rest of that cake.
We need to be loud and clear that any further restrictions are not acceptable.
- Libertarian_Geek
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 3116
- Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:52 am
- Location: Snarkeville, MS
Re: Is the sellout starting to form?
I recommend a new type of check to replace the out-dated 4473 forms.
A simple system/website/iphone app:
Enter the name, height, weight, home city and state. That's it. You don't tell it that it's for 1 gun or 500. You don't tell it that it's even for a gun transaction.
It returns a simple pass or fail.
Nothing else is captured. Nothing else is displayed.
It would be required for dealer gun sales in place of the current background check. But it would be available for use when selling cars, providing loans, random vanity-checks, anyone on the internet can use it for any purpose they like. Even for checking their neighbors or political candidates.
The requests would be muddy enough that it would be worthless as a defacto gun registry, yet it would fit the bill and let gun sellers know if their person is a convicted felon, drug user, etc.
A simple system/website/iphone app:
Enter the name, height, weight, home city and state. That's it. You don't tell it that it's for 1 gun or 500. You don't tell it that it's even for a gun transaction.
It returns a simple pass or fail.
Nothing else is captured. Nothing else is displayed.
It would be required for dealer gun sales in place of the current background check. But it would be available for use when selling cars, providing loans, random vanity-checks, anyone on the internet can use it for any purpose they like. Even for checking their neighbors or political candidates.
The requests would be muddy enough that it would be worthless as a defacto gun registry, yet it would fit the bill and let gun sellers know if their person is a convicted felon, drug user, etc.
https://www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
Re: Is the sellout starting to form?
I think "they" get some form of scraps. More concern of HC laws than anything now.
BTW, when I sell private sale I insist on carry permit # and DL, date it with ser#/make model,cal and put in my records. DOL form also works well.
BTW, when I sell private sale I insist on carry permit # and DL, date it with ser#/make model,cal and put in my records. DOL form also works well.
Member of the LSU, SWR, and RUGGED underground. Shame Silencerco!
Re: Is the sellout starting to form?
Guess I should start keeping better records when I make a private sale. They have all been to close friends or family but I don't usually even make a bill of sale....much less get a copy of their ID.
I've gotta stop this habit.
Re: Is the sellout starting to form?
Sometimes gun owners are their own worst enemies. The people whose proposals you're endorsing are not your friends, and don't like that you can own guns, and will do whatever they can to chip away at your 2nd Amendment rights. So if they don't get a full ban this time, they'll take whatever they can get. Then, next time something happens (and there will always be a next time), they just demand more. And more. And more, until we're the UK or Australia.este wrote:1. If you don't believe there is already at least a secret registry, you're a fool.
2. We're all NFA owners here. As someone else said last time this came up, we are the poster-boys for registration.
The woman whose ideas you're endorsing had this to say about gun ownership in the US:
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them—Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in—I would have done it."
-- Dianne Feinstein
She couldn't get 51 votes. And she probably won't get 51 votes this time. But if enough quislings join the anti-gun forces and give in to "reasonable" restrictions and things like universal background checks (ie universal gun registration), they'll just keep using that model. They won't get the whole cake each time, but there are only so many slices until it's gone. Maybe save some slices for future generations..
Last edited by trek45 on Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Is the sellout starting to form?
And how does one prove that they used such a system before they sold the gun? The honor system? No, the answer is the Universal Gun Registry that's needed to make universal background checks work.Libertarian_Geek wrote:I recommend a new type of check to replace the out-dated 4473 forms.
A simple system/website/iphone app:
Enter the name, height, weight, home city and state. That's it. You don't tell it that it's for 1 gun or 500. You don't tell it that it's even for a gun transaction.
It returns a simple pass or fail.
Nothing else is captured. Nothing else is displayed.
It would be required for dealer gun sales in place of the current background check. But it would be available for use when selling cars, providing loans, random vanity-checks, anyone on the internet can use it for any purpose they like. Even for checking their neighbors or political candidates.
The requests would be muddy enough that it would be worthless as a defacto gun registry, yet it would fit the bill and let gun sellers know if their person is a convicted felon, drug user, etc.
Thanks, but no thanks. Instead of trying to figure out how to help them further restrict our rights, why not try to figure out how to stop them from doing so?
And anyway, the problem with school shootings isn't a lack of universal background checks. It also not the reason there is so much gun violence in crime-ridden inner cities. Should it be harder to buy a car because drunk drivers kill so many people?
They. Want. Your. Guns.
Period. Don't help them. Feinstein's own words:
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them—Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in—I would have done it."
-- Dianne Feinstein
Don't come up with ways to help the woman who said in clear, spoken English that she wanted to take everyone's guns away. That's the end game. They can't get there overnight, but with a time horizon of a few decades and constant chips at the 2nd Amendment, they'll get there. I want my future grandkids to be able to enjoy shooting, not just get tired of stories about how people could own guns back in the day.
Re: Is the sellout starting to form?
Find it odd that they push these laws when the DEM/liberals doing these shooting?
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeTCkoXs ... e=youtu.be
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeTCkoXs ... e=youtu.be
Member of the LSU, SWR, and RUGGED underground. Shame Silencerco!
- Libertarian_Geek
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 3116
- Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:52 am
- Location: Snarkeville, MS
Re: Is the sellout starting to form?
It doesn't. It's the honor system today for private sales and it would continue to be the honor system. You know it's that whole presumption of innocence thing that we keep hearing nothing about.trek45 wrote:Libertarian_Geek wrote:I recommend a new type of check to replace the out-dated 4473 forms.
A simple system/website/iphone app:
Enter the name, height, weight, home city and state. That's it. You don't tell it that it's for 1 gun or 500. You don't tell it that it's even for a gun transaction.
It returns a simple pass or fail.
Nothing else is captured. Nothing else is displayed.
It would be required for dealer gun sales in place of the current background check. But it would be available for use when selling cars, providing loans, random vanity-checks, anyone on the internet can use it for any purpose they like. Even for checking their neighbors or political candidates.
The requests would be muddy enough that it would be worthless as a defacto gun registry, yet it would fit the bill and let gun sellers know if their person is a convicted felon, drug user, etc.trek45 wrote: And how does one prove that they used such a system before they sold the gun? The honor system? No, the answer is the Universal Gun Registry that's needed to make universal background checks work.
Just like there's no way today to prove that you used such a system before selling a gun. We all know that people with bad intentions won't use it anyway, so proof that you used it is just keeping the honest people honest. Are you really criticizing this idea because it isn't strict enough?
Implying that I'm trying to figure out "how to help them further restrict our rights" is a lie or a knee-jerk reply. You must have missed the part where I wrote that this would replace the current 4473. The data generated from this (because it's wide open for anyone on the internet to use at any time) would not be useable as a source for a gun registry (unlike today's system).trek45 wrote: Thanks, but no thanks. Instead of trying to figure out how to help them further restrict our rights, why not try to figure out how to stop them from doing so?
No s--t.trek45 wrote: And anyway, the problem with school shootings isn't a lack of universal background checks.
Again, No s--t.trek45 wrote: It also not the reason there is so much gun violence in crime-ridden inner cities.
Did you even read my post? Did you understand it? It seems common for people in forums to combine red-herrings with false-premises and then make a straw-man to whack.trek45 wrote: Should it be harder to buy a car because drunk drivers kill so many people?
See previous "no s--t" comments.trek45 wrote: They. Want. Your. Guns.
Period. Don't help them. Feinstein's own words:
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them—Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in—I would have done it."
-- Dianne Feinstein
Don't come up with ways to help the woman who said in clear, spoken English that she wanted to take everyone's guns away. That's the end game. They can't get there overnight, but with a time horizon of a few decades and constant chips at the 2nd Amendment, they'll get there. I want my future grandkids to be able to enjoy shooting, not just get tired of stories about how people could own guns back in the day.
Now, I know it would never fly (because the antis would fight it tooth and nail since it eliminates the ability to differentiate those who bought guns from those who are using the look-ups for other reasons), but how is it that you think this is an additional burden/erosion of rights?
It takes away the argument because even private sellers could say "I ran a background check". Although, they wouldn't be required to.
It takes away the ability to use background check data as a gun-registry.
It eliminates the current 4473.
If buying from a gun-dealer, you'd make your purchase. They'd do a quick check and done. They'd update their paperwork, just as they do today and would mark a "Pass" column in their books (not recording the seller's info).
If buying from an individual. No change. Unless the seller wanted to run a check on you. It's totally up to them.
If you're about to buy a couch on craigslist, you could use it to see if the seller has a seedy background. This puts non-gun data into the system.
It weakens the arguments about "private sale loopholes". It also highlights the argument that everyone keeps ignoring in the current gun debate narrative. The fact that background checks are currently capturing data on gun purchases and sending it into an opaque system that's most likely an illegal gun-registry. This is one of the main reasons that today's background checks are a problem. To the uninformed Joe-citizen, they don't see the problem and no one is filling them in on it.
https://www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
Re: Is the sellout starting to form?
The flaws in your logic are:
1. You trust the government too much.
2. You think the government trusts you.
1. You trust the government too much.
2. You think the government trusts you.
- Libertarian_Geek
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 3116
- Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:52 am
- Location: Snarkeville, MS
Re: Is the sellout starting to form?
Please elaborate (or not).trek45 wrote:The flaws in your logic are:
1. You trust the government too much.
2. You think the government trusts you.
1.> My proposal doesn't require the trust of the government, just the will of the people. I stated that it wouldn't pass. Given that, please point out where I showed any trust in the government > 0.
2.> Again, I stated that it wouldn't pass (just that it makes for a counter-arugment). Given that point, please quote where I showed any expectation that the government trusts me.
Even though it benefits the ego to do so, try not to cherry-pick individual statements while taking them outside of the complete context that I've established. I'd rather not have to piece each part together repeating the original context every time that I counter your hyperbole.
If you do this, then you'll have fewer (if any) actual retorts and we can both save time on this already tiresome thread.
https://www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
Re: Is the sellout starting to form?
I am sort of OK with an idea like this but how do you keep people from running checks just to run checks? Given, they would have to have access to some personal key like a DL# or a SS# which <theoretically> you would have to provide to them. Personally if it was free I might run a check on myself once a week just for shits and giggles.Libertarian_Geek wrote:...
If buying from an individual. No change. Unless the seller wanted to run a check on you. It's totally up to them.
...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDtd2jNIwAU MUSAFAR!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI This is Water DavidW
Complete Form 1s http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=79895
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI This is Water DavidW
Complete Form 1s http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=79895
- Libertarian_Geek
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 3116
- Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:52 am
- Location: Snarkeville, MS
Re: Is the sellout starting to form?
You don't. People just just run checks for shits and giggles, or vanity-checks. That helps to prevent it from being used as a gun registry.doubloon wrote:I am sort of OK with an idea like this but how do you keep people from running checks just to run checks? Given, they would have to have access to some personal key like a DL# or a SS# which <theoretically> you would have to provide to them. Personally if it was free I might run a check on myself once a week just for shits and giggles.Libertarian_Geek wrote:...
If buying from an individual. No change. Unless the seller wanted to run a check on you. It's totally up to them.
...
It's not private information though. It would only flag "Fail" if:
you were a fugitive from the law, current felon, illegal alien, etc. All public information. Keep in mind, that this is just a spit-ball idea that just formed here as a reply to a post. I haven't taken the time to vet the details of said thought experiment.
https://www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
- silencertalk
- Site Admin
- Posts: 33978
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
- Location: USA
Re: Is the sellout starting to form?
I don't believe that.trek45 wrote:Universal background checks = universal gun registration. That's the problem.
A universal background check could be the exact same background check we have now, except you would have to do it for a private sale and not just a dealer transfer.
You can prove that it was done by getting a transaction ID number.
Govt. keeping records of it is already illegal.
The best reason to fight this is that it will keep them from having hope that they can pass a magazine ban. So I agree to not give in, but what I really don't want is a ban on something.
Re: Is the sellout starting to form?
Ok, you get a transaction ID number. What does that number represent? Is it just a random number that isn't tied to anything, or is it tied to the record of the transaction in the registry?silencertalk wrote:I don't believe that.trek45 wrote:Universal background checks = universal gun registration. That's the problem.
A universal background check could be the exact same background check we have now, except you would have to do it for a private sale and not just a dealer transfer.
You can prove that it was done by getting a transaction ID number.
If it's just a number, people could just make them up. Even if there's some cryptic formula, how long would it take for someone to crack it and make a generator for them?
With universal background checks, there would need to be some way to prove one was performed. Either by going to a dealer (and I'm sure most dealers would love mandated customers), or by [the horrible idea of] using an app or phone number or something and entering someone's personal information. If the proof is just a number that isn't attached to anything, then how do they determine if it's valid? They will not push universal background checks without also having penalties for violating the law. So there will need to be a way to show whether it was done. If that's not a registry, or the honor system, then what is it?
But maybe I am missing something.. So how could they implement universal background checks without any kind of registry, and also have a way to definitively charge people who buy/sell guns without using the universal background check system? The only way I can see that happening is if there was a record of the background check - which ties the gun and the buyer together - in a registry.
- continuity
- Elite Member
- Posts: 4554
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 6:39 am
- Location: Ohio
Re: Is the sellout starting to form?
Uh, the naivety of that thought is concerning.silencertalk wrote:...You can prove that it was done by getting a transaction ID number.
Govt. keeping records of it is already illegal...
What amount of a man is composed of his own collection of experiences... and the conclusions that those experiences have allowed him to "know" for certain as "Truth"? :Ick
- Libertarian_Geek
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 3116
- Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:52 am
- Location: Snarkeville, MS
Re: Is the sellout starting to form?
Right. If you had to, you could prove that it was done by getting a key # (that could be verified but not reversed) in return. Each key number supplied would be logged as used. Again, the key to keeping the background check from becoming a gun registry is to allow everyone and anyone to use it for whatever reason they want. As long as the government's private key never made it out, it would hold true.silencertalk wrote:I don't believe that.trek45 wrote:Universal background checks = universal gun registration. That's the problem.
A universal background check could be the exact same background check we have now, except you would have to do it for a private sale and not just a dealer transfer.
You can prove that it was done by getting a transaction ID number.
Govt. keeping records of it is already illegal.
The best reason to fight this is that it will keep them from having hope that they can pass a magazine ban. So I agree to not give in, but what I really don't want is a ban on something.
Charge a nickle for each look-up so it won't get used 2M times a second.
It doesn't have to be a registry tied with one look up per firearm if you intentionally muddy the data by letting everyone use it if they want. Trek seems to be missing this point. Maybe even intentionally at this point.
If you care to get real geeky, I can explain how the keys transaction numbers would work and wouldn't be vulnerable to someone coming out w/ a key gen (as long as the original private key(s) were kept secret.
https://www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
Re: Is the sellout starting to form?
This is nothing new, and nothing else would be needed. We already have this, the number provided by NICS can be verified but not the info. Otherwise a dealer could just make up a batch of numbers on a 4473. I have requested this info internally, and it does in fact use a logarithmic scale to produce the NICS number. BATFE can verify that a number was issued, but keeps no other info after a period of time.Ok, you get a transaction ID number. What does that number represent? Is it just a random number that isn't tied to anything, or is it tied to the record of the transaction in the registry?
If it's just a number, people could just make them up. Even if there's some cryptic formula, how long would it take for someone to crack it and make a generator for them?
With universal background checks, there would need to be some way to prove one was performed
I will fight this on GP as it is a further creep towards other infractions, but in actual reality I am not real concerned.
.02