White House Proposing New Background checks

[sectxag06]

https://twitter.com/alexsalvinews/st...364322305?s=20

reading that this would mean anyone selling on TBH or other websites like this would fall under "commercial" and require background checks. this is complete and utter gun grabbing bs.

[SmTx]

Inching closer towards total gun registration.

[WItoTX]

Compare this to buying a car. When you buy a car, you are not required to have a license, but in order to use it on the road, you must have it registered, and the driver must have a license.

This bill reads like you have to have a drivers license in order to purchase the car, but you don't need to register it. I don't see it as a gun grab, but I do see it as one more headache to deal with when selling guns.

My analogy probably isn't perfect, but it's close.

[sectxag06]

Originally Posted by WItoTX

Compare this to buying a car. When you buy a car, you are not required to have a license, but in order to use it on the road, you must have it registered, and the driver must have a license.

This bill reads like you have to have a drivers license in order to purchase the car, but you don't need to register it. I don't see it as a gun grab, but I do see it as one more headache to deal with when selling guns.

My analogy probably isn't perfect, but it's close.

it's not a pure gun grab. but, as the poster above you said, this moves us towards national gun registry. that's how you incrementally take guns from people.

[Hunteraudit]

Sigh. Why do we let these libs win?

[BuckySWT]

Originally Posted by WItoTX

Compare this to buying a car. When you buy a car, you are not required to have a license, but in order to use it on the road, you must have it registered, and the driver must have a license.

This bill reads like you have to have a drivers license in order to purchase the car, but you don't need to register it. I don't see it as a gun grab, but I do see it as one more headache to deal with when selling guns.

My analogy probably isn't perfect, but it's close.

Sorry.

Nowhere in the constitution does it guarantee you the right to own or drive a car.

Owning a firearm is guaranteed and protected by the constitution. Comparing it to car ownership is apples and oranges and not a good argument.

Having to register your religion and have a license to go to church would be a better example of a parallel requirement.

Regardless, noncompliance is going to defeat most of these rules, and the ONLY way that universal checks WILL work is with a national gun registry and GOOD FREAKIN LUCK with that.

Anyone on here plan on bowing down and filling out the form that they'll send out with make, model, serial number and caliber of everything you own?

Not me.

[Russ-T]

Problems with this bill.

People in rural areas may have to travel hours to get to a person licensed to do background checks and therefore will not do it.

We cannot have citizens conducting background checks on other citizens without violating peoples medical privacy rights.

[jerp]

I dont see a clear definition of "commercial". I'm unsure what "advertised commercial sales" means. Is that any exchange of money, by anybody? If my hunting buddy offers to buy my rifle, is that different from me putting it up for sale on TBH because I "advertised" it?

[locolobo]

I'm just glad I don't have any guns I wanna sell. And it so happens, I don't have any guns @ all due to a tragic boating accident last summer.

[AntlerCollector]

Y'all just need to think of all the mass murders this law will stop.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Russ-T

Problems with this bill.

People in rural areas may have to travel hours to get to a person licensed to do background checks and therefore will not do it.

We cannot have citizens conducting background checks on other citizens without violating peoples medical privacy rights.

The FBI runs the background check, the FFL/ person just tells them to run it. The result is one of 3... Approve, Deny, or Delay... Not sure how that violates anyone's medical privacy. The FBI does not tell dealers why a person is denied.

Sent from my TA-1004 using Tapatalk

[DarrellS]

Wonder what the definition of Commercial seller is? The way I read it that is the only sale that would be affected.

Sent from my SM-T827V using Tapatalk

[Samson]

Originally Posted by DarrellS

Wonder what the definition of Commercial seller is? The way I read it that is the only sale that would be affected.

Sent from my SM-T827V using Tapatalk

And how are they going to address loaning firearms?

Sent from my TA-1004 using Tapatalk

[Radar]

So if you have a CHL does that bypass the call in? In regards to this new proposal.

[sectxag06]

Originally Posted by DarrellS

Wonder what the definition of Commercial seller is? The way I read it that is the only sale that would be affected.

Sent from my SM-T827V using Tapatalk

it suppose to close the so called gun show loophole. so, that anyone that is at a gun show whether you have a booth or are just walking around with a gun you want to sell has to run a background check as the whole event would fall under "commercial sellers". but, it also makes it so that any advertisement means commercial selling. armslist, tbh classifieds, etc.

[Jspradley]

The feds already know everything we own.


Thos wont solve anything, but I'd happily trade universal background checks for removing SBRs and Silencers from the NFA

[Muskles]

Originally Posted by AntlerCollector

Y'all just need to think of all the mass murders this law will stop.

Exactly! I feel so much safer when I go to a place that prohibits guns. At least you know the bad guys can't get you there.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Radar

So if you have a CHL does that bypass the call in? In regards to this new proposal.

That's done on a state by state basis today. The feds allow for the states to make that decision. I would not anticipate that changing. As you can expect, most red states allow it, blue states not so much...

Sent from my TA-1004 using Tapatalk

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Jspradley

The feds already know everything we own.


Thos wont solve anything, but I'd happily trade universal background checks for removing SBRs and Silencers from the NFA

They really don't. FFLs are required to keep records for 20 years, after that they can be destroyed. Serials aren't called in to the FBI when a background check is done, so their only recourse is to reference the dealers 4473s. If they are older than 20 years and the dealer keeps up with his purging, then the gvt has no clue who has what.

Sent from my TA-1004 using Tapatalk

[WItoTX]

Originally Posted by BuckySWT

Owning a firearm is guaranteed and protected by the constitution. Comparing it to car ownership is apples and oranges and not a good argument.

Having to register your religion and have a license to go to church would be a better example of a parallel requirement.

That's a way better analogy. Good call.

The only issue with that argument is we have already allowed our rights to be infringed upon (for all intents and purposes we banned automatics and suppressors, and I am fairly certain bump stocks were banned by this admin), so what's the big deal by telling some private individuals they have to report all the guns they buy or sell?

That's the argument you have to overcome, and for a majority of the public, they think "welp, if it saves just one life, it's worth it". Those are the same idiots that think their car is safe because government made them get an inspection.

[Russ-T]

Originally Posted by Samson

The FBI runs the background check, the FFL/ person just tells them to run it. The result is one of 3... Approve, Deny, or Delay... Not sure how that violates anyone's medical privacy. The FBI does not tell dealers why a person is denied.

Sent from my TA-1004 using Tapatalk

So if you and I both live as neighbors in the mountains of Colorado and you want to buy one of my guns. There are no FFL people around us for hours. How is a background check conducted in this instance?

[locolobo]

I have been approved to purchase a firearm only once since the background was enacted. Was never denied, according to the dealers, But the national dealers (Academy, Walmart, BPS etc won't sell unless they get an "Accepted" reply from the Feds. Yes, I have a record, in fact a few. But they are not anything that would put me in the "denied" list. Don't know how the one "accepted" happened but it did.
I know, I should'a kept my nose clean as a youngster but it didn't happen. But the goment can and will use every means possible to deny the right of a citizen to bear arms. We have it good now. Let this pass and we will be on the proverbial slippery slope!

[captainsling]

Originally Posted by Jspradley

The feds already know everything we own.


Thos wont solve anything, but I'd happily trade universal background checks for removing SBRs and Silencers from the NFA

Your statement is wrong. They don’t know everything you own. They don’t track it. They only track the background check.

[WItoTX]

Originally Posted by Russ-T

So if you and I both live as neighbors in the mountains of Colorado and you want to buy one of my guns. There are no FFL people around us for hours. How is a background check conducted in this instance?

Smartphone and an app. Take a photo of the ID, put it into the app along with both the purchaser and sellers name, and run it. It's the 21st century, there is no reason that can't be done.

[HuntForHorns]

Originally Posted by Samson

They really don't. FFLs are required to keep records for 20 years, after that they can be destroyed. Serials aren't called in to the FBI when a background check is done, so their only recourse is to reference the dealers 4473s. If they are older than 20 years and the dealer keeps up with his purging, then the gvt has no clue who has what.

Sent from my TA-1004 using Tapatalk

This. Most people don't understand what really happens when you fill out the 4473.

Sent from my MHA-L29 using Tapatalk

[Drycreek3189]

This can’t be true, because I heard Trump say that he was the most 2nd Amendment guy ever...........

[Clay C]

It seems to me like this does absolutely nothing but put liability on the seller.

What in the world does this solve, prevent or would have prevented?

[SabreKiller]

There's no clear definition of "commercial seller" in this document. I think this will only affect those trying to sell guns at gun shows. I don't know that this affects the private sale of a gun.

[hopedale]

Call the White House at (202) 456-1111 or (202) 456-1414 right away and politely urge President Trump not to push any gun control deals.

Then call your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121 and urge them to reject any gun control package even if it comes from the White House.

If you can't get through on the phone -

Ted Cruz - https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=form&id=16

John Cornyn - https://www.cornyn.senate.gov/contact

And if you're not a member of the NRA consider one of the other Pro Gun Groups

https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/t...nizations-nra/

1. The Second Amendment Foundation
2. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
3. Gun Owners of America
4. National Association for Gun Rights
5. Constitutional Rights PAC

[doright]

I won't sell you a gun but you can rent one from me for a very long time.

[Russ-T]

Originally Posted by WItoTX

Smartphone and an app. Take a photo of the ID, put it into the app along with both the purchaser and sellers name, and run it. It's the 21st century, there is no reason that can't be done.

I do not think it should ever be a sellers responsibility to check a purchasers background. I think it should be the buyers responsibility to prove he is legal to own the gun. This could be done easily in a way that the sales would be expedient. If the government wants to enact a way to require a check on person to person sales then they should develop a way for buyers to be pre-certified. This could be done easily the same way we get our LTC's. The buyer could go through a background check and receive an ID card showing they are legal to buy a firearm. The ID could be good for three to five years at a time but be revoked if the person commit's certain crimes or checks into a mental hospital. With a pre-certification their could be a single page form that the seller fills out with the buyers "purchasers ID number" on it to mail in or do it online. It could be done in a matter of a few minutes and the only thing the seller would be responsible for is logging that the buyer was pre-certified. The question then would be how detailed should the information be about the gun that was sold?

[Traildust]

Originally Posted by doright

I won't sell you a gun but you can rent one from me for a very long time.

I'll loan you my gun, but I need to "borrow" some money from you first!

[Artos]

Why hasn't this hit national news?? Have been listening off & on all day??

Should be front page material

[sotx]

Originally Posted by AntlerCollector

Y'all just need to think of all the mass murders this law will stop.

Exactly. What a crock, all this does is screw over guys like us.

[RiverRat1]

Originally Posted by Artos

Why hasn't this hit national news?? Have been listening off & on all day??

Should be front page material

It will be. IMO the whole point of liberals pushing this so hard is to back Trump in a corner to **** off a portion of his base.

There's about a zero percent chance Dems think this would actually solve anything. Watch shootings go up more over the next 6 months so they can try to force Trump to really tick his base off.

Enough of Trump supporters are stupid and scared and actually want gun control. Zero anti-Trumpers will switch sides no matter what Trump does with guns. It's a lose/lose for Trump.

[RiverRat1]

Originally Posted by SmTx

Inching closer towards total gun registration.

Originally Posted by sectxag06

it's not a pure gun grab. but, as the poster above you said, this moves us towards national gun registry. that's how you incrementally take guns from people.

Liberals are playing chess. Their pieces are getting in the right places fast...and it's scary!

Originally Posted by AntlerCollector

Y'all just need to think of all the mass murders this law will stop.

We will be living in peace very soon. I mean take away all the shootings that each of us personally see and the world will be perfect!

[flywise]

Originally Posted by Artos

Why hasn't this hit national news?? Have been listening off & on all day??

Should be front page material

I cant find it anywhere

[mrc]

So just lets say they found a gun that was made in 2000, and that gun was used in a crime. The dealer sold it to Joe per the 4473, the FBI finds Joe and he sold it to Tim in 2003. Then Tim sold it to some dude at the gunshow in 2010, what good was the 4473?What good would a 4473 in a private sale do if it doesn't transfer a serial number....none. You will never stop the private sale of guns.

[Artos]

Originally Posted by mrc

What good would a 4473 in a private sale do if it doesn't transfer a serial number....none. You will never stop the private sale of guns.

Well, if you are an ffl I would expect to lose your lic on the next inspection...the paperwork is meaningless with no traceability.

I'll wait to chime in once it's been proven & front page. Trump was quoted as universals being a slippery slope. The two bills in congress will never pass.

[Txfire409]

Originally Posted by WItoTX

Compare this to buying a car. When you buy a car, you are not required to have a license, but in order to use it on the road, you must have it registered, and the driver must have a license.

This bill reads like you have to have a drivers license in order to purchase the car, but you don't need to register it. I don't see it as a gun grab, but I do see it as one more headache to deal with when selling guns.

My analogy probably isn't perfect, but it's close.

Owning and/or driving a car is not a constitutional right. Owning a gun is.

[gingib]

Originally Posted by WItoTX

Compare this to buying a car. When you buy a car, you are not required to have a license, but in order to use it on the road, you must have it registered, and the driver must have a license.

This bill reads like you have to have a drivers license in order to purchase the car, but you don't need to register it. I don't see it as a gun grab, but I do see it as one more headache to deal with when selling guns.

My analogy probably isn't perfect, but it's close.

No..its not close

[MisplacedTexan]

If the real concern is keeping firearms away from potential buyer's that have some sort of disqualifier for making the purchase, then why do the new forms need to have any mention of a firearm's serial number? I have no problem with a seller and purchaser having to verify the individual's background to be permitted to possess or own a firearm since supposedly thats the reason for a background check, so lets keep that the issue.

The definition of commercial sales will change over time. No doubt if this were to pass, in time, commercial sales will eventually include inherited firearms or passed down firearms.

Eventually, the people who have the items in possession that weren't run through the system, will have a headache. Think about how hard it is to title a used boat or boat motor that a law abiding citizen wants to get titled, but does not have the original title. A lot of hassle to become legal.

Anyone old enough to recall the laws passed regarding smoking? 1st you could smoke anywhere, then only designated smoking sections/ areas, then no smoking within a certain distance of the establishment, then no smoking at all. And I am not a smoker.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[mmoses]

Originally Posted by Artos

Why hasn't this hit national news?? Have been listening off & on all day??

Should be front page material

has a bill been proposed?

[sailor]

Originally Posted by Russ-T

So if you and I both live as neighbors in the mountains of Colorado and you want to buy one of my guns. There are no FFL people around us for hours. How is a background check conducted in this instance?

I'll just, ask your wife......

[Hunteraudit]

Originally Posted by AntlerCollector

Y'all just need to think of all the mass murders this law will stop.

I feel safer already

[Puggy625]

Originally Posted by Russ-T

I do not think it should ever be a sellers responsibility to check a purchasers background. I think it should be the buyers responsibility to prove he is legal to own the gun. This could be done easily in a way that the sales would be expedient. If the government wants to enact a way to require a check on person to person sales then they should develop a way for buyers to be pre-certified. This could be done easily the same way we get our LTC's. The buyer could go through a background check and receive an ID card showing they are legal to buy a firearm. The ID could be good for three to five years at a time but be revoked if the person commit's certain crimes or checks into a mental hospital. With a pre-certification their could be a single page form that the seller fills out with the buyers "purchasers ID number" on it to mail in or do it online. It could be done in a matter of a few minutes and the only thing the seller would be responsible for is logging that the buyer was pre-certified. The question then would be how detailed should the information be about the gun that was sold?

UMMMMMMM! Not no, but hell no!

[texansfan]

Originally Posted by WItoTX

Compare this to buying a car. When you buy a car, you are not required to have a license, but in order to use it on the road, you must have it registered, and the driver must have a license.

This bill reads like you have to have a drivers license in order to purchase the car, but you don't need to register it. I don't see it as a gun grab, but I do see it as one more headache to deal with when selling guns.

My analogy probably isn't perfect, but it's close.

Buying or owning a car is not covered by the Constitution

[texansfan]

Originally Posted by Russ-T

Problems with this bill.

People in rural areas may have to travel hours to get to a person licensed to do background checks and therefore will not do it.

.

Kinda like registering to vote.

[Thumper]

Commercials sales need to be defined as gun shows and websites that charge fees. Provisions for no background checks for CHL holders must stay in place.

[Mike D]

Originally Posted by captainsling

Your statement is wrong. They don’t know everything you own. They don’t track it. They only track the background check.

If you think they don’t know or can’t find out where a large majority of guns are, you are sadly mistaken.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro