Background checks looking like the "compromise"

[K.Mooneyham]

If the NRA gives up on this, i'll have wasted money on a life membership.

NRA asked BATF to provide a booth for gun-checkout after background checks at gun shows, and the BTAF said we are not interested

If the compromise is only limited to gun-shows and not friend to friend private sale or family to family transfer, then I can live with that.

BTW how the Feds are going to enforce background checks on private sale/transfer?!!!

I suspect that the NRA may be willing to "compromise" in regards to gun shows only, as long as it doesn't cover all face-to-face, private sales...it gives up VERY little and then they are quite able to say, "But we were willing to COMPROMISE on what seemed REASONABLE". And it takes that term "gun show loophole" and tosses it in the trash.

[anygunanywhere]

If the NRA gives up on this, i'll have wasted money on a life membership.

NRA asked BATF to provide a booth for gun-checkout after background checks at gun shows, and the BTAF said we are not interested

If the compromise is only limited to gun-shows and not friend to friend private sale or family to family transfer, then I can live with that.

BTW how the Feds are going to enforce background checks on private sale/transfer?!!!

I suspect that the NRA may be willing to "compromise" in regards to gun shows only, as long as it doesn't cover all face-to-face, private sales...it gives up VERY little and then they are quite able to say, "But we were willing to COMPROMISE on what seemed REASONABLE". And it takes that term "gun show loophole" and tosses it in the trash.

The compromise would toss the term "gun show loophole" and at the same time give the antis ANOTHER VICTORY.

ONCE THE TERM "GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE" IS GONE THEY WILL THEN ADOPT THE TERM "PRIVATE SALE LOOPHOLE" AND THEN PROCEED ON THE CAMPAIGN TO REMOVE ALL OF OUR 2A FREEDOM THAT REMAINS.

Compromising is losing! Never forget! The goal is confiscation and disarmament!

Anygunanywhere

[fickman]

]]I bought that gun before FTF became illegal (and, at least so far, that would be the truth for me).

It works unless the gun was bought new buy the first owner after that date...

There is no way to enforce background checks on all private transfers without registration.

IMO, I think our position is best illustrated by using the example of two people swapping guns in an even trade. (Full size 1911 for a compact, or a 9mm M&P straight up for a .40, etc.)

In this scenario, you assume he has a right to own a gun because he owns a gun. Maybe you check his CHL, too. Maybe he's an acquaintance. Before the trade, you each had one gun. After the trade, you each have one gun. Did we need NICS or an FFL to complete this transaction? How would the government know the trade happened unless they have a database linking guns to owners?

To me, that illustrates the absurdity of the requirement. Educating people on responsible private gun sales is important...

Mandatory sentences and consistent prosecution of criminals with guns is the only thing that will work.

[Keith B]

I am against any change in the private sale rules to require background checks. Per current federal regulations people who meet the federal statutory definition of “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms must follow federal rules — including checking the background of purchasers, but sales from one individual to another do not have to go through the process. With that said, I know there are numerous individuals who 'sell from their private collection' but are doing nothing but buying to sell or trade, not to use for their own. I have seen this at gun shows and on gun auction sites where a private individual will purchase a gun and then turn around that day and put it on their table or the site for sale. This is NOT what private sales are supposed to be.

Some states (32 now) already require private sales to have a background check, or the individual to have a permit or card to purchase a firearm. Some states don't require NICS, but use law enforcement to check the background of the purchaser to make sure they are able to legally purchase a firearm.

My personal opinion is the ATF needs to do some research and find those that are usurping the law by buying just to resell and turn a profit and leave the federal law alone and as it is today.

Here is an 2002 article by the HRO in Texas that has a pretty good rundown on what the rules are and the issue of the so-called 'Gun Show loophole'. http://www.hro.house.state.tx.us/focus/gunshow.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Charles L. Cotton]

Watch the video. David said nothing about background checks on all private sales. In fact, he didn't even say the NRA would accept background checks on all sales at gun shows. He said the NRA has been the primary supporter of the NICS system. For those who don't remember how that came to be, the Brady's wanted a permanent 10 waiting period for everyone purchasing guns. The NRA was able to change the bill such that there was a temporary 3 day waiting period while the instant system was developed.

We are in a fight to prevent the worst imaginable anti-gun laws from being enacted. As I noted in my article The Great Cultural War on American Freedom, many in Washington are lukewarm Second Amendment supporters who feel they must do something. I'm not saying anything will pass Congress, because that will depend largely on how well American gun owners respond to the call to join the NRA. But if it becomes necessary to pass a law requiring background checks to avoid another assault weapons and high capacity magazine ban, I believe most rational people will accept the fact that it's better than the alternative. If anyone here thinks the NRA can dictate every single thing we want, then you are sadly mistaken.

This is no time to be fighting over comments taken out of context, or perceived positions taken or not taken by the NRA. In peacetime, we can talk more openly about our differences, but not in a war and we are clearly in a war to save the Second Amendment.

Chas.

[Ericstac]

I could see having a FFL deal with private sales inside a gunshow, but I don't think it needs to be a law passed down from Obama. It should just be a gun show rule that they all do. I would get a little irritated if I bought a table to sale guns and I'm watching individuals walk around and selling the same guns I'm offering, but they didn't have to pay for a table

[texanjoker]

If we loose the right for individual sales it is just another piece of our 2A rights taken away. They will continue to chip away at them to eventually they are gone completely.

Agreed, but where was everybody when other states already did this? In CA you have to take a gun to a FFL, and they actually keep the gun for 10 days while this happens. I wrote the NRA and others but they didn't do anything about it. This should have been challenged a long time ago. As I have always predicted, the CA gun laws would spread. Sad nobody listened.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Compromising is losing! Never forget! The goal is confiscation and disarmament!

Anygunanywhere

Okay, here is a very real scenario. You are a lobbyist for the NRA meeting with a coalition of Senators and Congressmen. These men and women represent the swing votes an a gun control bill and they will vote together as a caucus. They tell you of the huge pressure put on them by their constituents to "do something" on gun control or they will vote against them in the next election. (This is happening right now, so it's not hypothetical.) They tell you they have to votes to amend the bill to remove the assault weapons ban and the high capacity magazine ban, and to limit additional mandatory background checks to private sales at gun shows.

You are told that they will do this, if the NRA does not rate them down or oppose them, otherwise they will vote for the bill as written and we lose everything.

What will you tell them?

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

If we loose the right for individual sales it is just another piece of our 2A rights taken away. They will continue to chip away at them to eventually they are gone completely.

Agreed, but where was everybody when other states already did this? In CA you have to take a gun to a FFL, and they actually keep the gun for 10 days while this happens. I wrote the NRA and others but they didn't do anything about it.

You are presuming the NRA could so something about California laws. The simple fact is we cannot; the State is controlled by liberal in LA and San Francisco and until/unless that changes, gun control will be the order of the day. Thankfully, California laws do not spread around the country as many Californians believe. That was the joke when I was in law school; California perceived itself as being on the cutting edge of legal thought when in actuality they were universally scorned.

Chas.

[Redneck_Buddha]

If we loose the right for individual sales it is just another piece of our 2A rights taken away. They will continue to chip away at them to eventually they are gone completely.

Agreed, but where was everybody when other states already did this? In CA you have to take a gun to a FFL, and they actually keep the gun for 10 days while this happens. I wrote the NRA and others but they didn't do anything about it.

You are presuming the NRA could so something about California laws. The simple fact is we cannot; the State is controlled by liberal in LA and San Francisco and until/unless that changes, gun control will be the order of the day. Thankfully, California laws do not spread around the country as many Californians believe. That was the joke when I was in law school; California perceived itself as being on the cutting edge of legal thought when in actuality they were universally scorned.

Chas.

The "ability to organize" gap between anti-gun interests and those interested in preserving the constitution seems very wide. It is further complicated by the obvious bias of the mainstream media. It is how the viewpoint of a minority of the public has been allowed to proliferate for so long and seemed to really take hold after the 2004 presidential election. We need some "community organizers" to rise from ranks of civil libertarians so we can become the organized and vocal majority that this country needs right now.

[jmra]

Compromising is losing! Never forget! The goal is confiscation and disarmament!

Anygunanywhere

Okay, here is a very real scenario. You are a lobbyist for the NRA meeting with a coalition of Senators and Congressmen. These men and women represent the swing votes an a gun control bill and they will vote together as a caucus. They tell you of the huge pressure put on them by their constituents to "do something" on gun control or they will vote against them in the next election. (This is happening right now, so it's not hypothetical.) They tell you they have to votes to amend the bill to remove the assault weapons ban and the high capacity magazine ban, and to limit additional mandatory background checks to private sales at gun shows.

You are told that they will do this, if the NRA does not rate them down or oppose them, otherwise they will vote for the bill as written and we lose everything.

What will you tell them?

Chas.

I'd give them a big fat kiss then wash my mouth out with soap when I got home.

[anygunanywhere]

Compromising is losing! Never forget! The goal is confiscation and disarmament!

Anygunanywhere

Okay, here is a very real scenario. You are a lobbyist for the NRA meeting with a coalition of Senators and Congressmen. These men and women represent the swing votes an a gun control bill and they will vote together as a caucus. They tell you of the huge pressure put on them by their constituents to "do something" on gun control or they will vote against them in the next election. (This is happening right now, so it's not hypothetical.) They tell you they have to votes to amend the bill to remove the assault weapons ban and the high capacity magazine ban, and to limit additional mandatory background checks to private sales at gun shows.

You are told that they will do this, if the NRA does not rate them down or oppose them, otherwise they will vote for the bill as written and we lose everything.

What will you tell them?

Chas.

Remind them of what happened the last time the AWB passed and heads rolled during the next election for starters. These recent events need to be burned into our memory next mid term election.

Then I would question the validity of their claim that their constituents are demanding them do something like limit our 2A freedoms.

Your question is a valid one and does reflect the way things work in DC, unfortunately. The position we are in now facing continued compromise on second amendment rights is a fight we should not be in and reflects the gradual erosion of our liberties that has progressed since the ink dried on the documents.

I know how this will end up. I do not accept this. We will lose in the end. We will never gain anything back at the federal level.

The only question I have is when will it be "Game, Set, Match! They win. Turn them in?"

Thanks for the thought provoking question.

Anygunanywhere

[SherwoodForest]

The CHL presently satisfies the NIC's check in Texas. Maybe a good reason for more folks to obtain one now,

I wouldn't transfer a gun to anyone I wasn't at peace with possessing one regardlesss of any law.

[Dave2]

Compromising is losing! Never forget! The goal is confiscation and disarmament!

Anygunanywhere

Okay, here is a very real scenario. You are a lobbyist for the NRA meeting with a coalition of Senators and Congressmen. These men and women represent the swing votes an a gun control bill and they will vote together as a caucus. They tell you of the huge pressure put on them by their constituents to "do something" on gun control or they will vote against them in the next election. (This is happening right now, so it's not hypothetical.) They tell you they have to votes to amend the bill to remove the assault weapons ban and the high capacity magazine ban, and to limit additional mandatory background checks to private sales at gun shows.

You are told that they will do this, if the NRA does not rate them down or oppose them, otherwise they will vote for the bill as written and we lose everything.

What will you tell them?

Chas.

Would they be open to adding a sunset clause to the parts they can't amend out?

Also, I think I could support saying that anyone at a gun show advertising "no background checks" is, at least for the show, operating as a gun dealer and needs to abide by gun dealer laws. I might even be ok with saying that all transactions at a gun show which result in a net change in the # of guns in either party's "inventory" need to follow the same rules as gun dealers (as fickman pointed out, there's really no harm from two people trading guns, since they both have a gun before and they both have a gun after).

[anygunanywhere]

Also, why don't we stop calling these things compromises? They are not compromises. Calling them compromises is us propogating the anti's language terminology. With all due respect, Charles hypothetical is not a compromise. Everything proposed from the AWB, magazine limit, and background checks all amount to infringement - losses. If all that is passed is the background check then we have not compromised. We have a net loss. The antis have a net gain. We just limited our losses on a temporary basis.

A true compromise would be if we lost on the background checks and gained silencers without the NFA requirements.

Anygunanywhere