Universal background check bill may be dead

[Texashiker]

Looks like there are some serious doubts about the universal background check bill.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/31/senators-have-doubts-about-universal-background-ch/

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said that out of about 80,000 people who failed background checks last year, just 66 were prosecuted.

Why pass a new law when existing laws are not being enforced?

Senators are also asking how the universal background checks would affect giving firearms as a gift? Such as a father buying a firearm for his son or daughter.

What about leaving a firearm in a will? Can grandpaw leave that family heirloom single shot shotgun to the oldest grandson?

Then there are the resources needed to do the background checks.

 

[xBiffx]

Good thing. Only thing this leads to is universal registration and then eventually confiscation. No other reason to have "universal" anything. Exhibit 1: healthcare. Leave it to the states, the feds can't do anything more efficiently.

 

[sunzt]

... the feds can't do anything more efficiently.

Air traffic control?
Anything requiring national standards of safety/performance?

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/expectmore/rating/perform.html

 

[PokerGuy]

We can only hope that it's dead, but the idiots who seek to disarm law abiding citizens will not stop.

 

[zsdersw]

the feds can't do anything more efficiently.

How about our armed forces?

Texas or Indiana or Florida didn't fight in the war on terrorism, the United States did (and does).

 

[HumblePie]

UBC would have zero enforcement.

How would they prove someone sold a gun after or before the bill for guns that were purchased from an FFL dealer prior to the law?

As for giving away, how would they prove that person wasn't an immediate family member?

"Yes officer, you see my cousin decided to marry that guy down in Mexico. They came back and moved in with me for a week while looking for a place to live together. As a wedding gift I gave him a firearm to defend the home with. Turns out a week later my cousin decided she didn't like him anymore. They went back to Mexico and had it annulled and now here we are. Where in Mexico? I don't know some place along the border I guess. Which cousin? She changed her name to Jaunita. She's somewhere still in Mexico now. Couldn't tell you where though anymore as she and I had a falling out."

Ask any one in the legal system to prove that statement above is not true and they'll laugh at you for wasting their time trying. In other words, any law that forces background check for private sales in completely unenforceable. If two people want to exchange a firearm privately there isn't a damn thing the government is going to do to be able to stop it or even regulate it if the two people don't want to government to do so. What this law really does is make it more of a pain in the ass to those people who follow the letter of the law always in the first place. Those are NOT the people who are going to be committing crimes. The very people not breaking the law are the ones the law is going to hurt.

Stupid legislation is fucking stupid.

 

[thraashman]

This is proof that Congress doesn't know how to represent the people. You have a concept that 90% of the population supports and it's likely dead. How ridiculous.

 

[xBiffx]

Air traffic control?
Anything requiring national standards of safety/performance?

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/expectmore/rating/perform.html

Hard for me to argue with things requiring national standards to not be national isn't it. Well set trap, sir.

 

[Texashiker]

This is proof that Congress doesn't know how to represent the people. You have a concept that 90% of the population supports and it's likely dead.

I think you are over estimating with that 90% number.

 

[xBiffx]

How about our armed forces?

Texas or Indiana or Florida didn't fight in the war on terrorism, the United States did (and does).

Seriously, you are going to use the military to counter my point. The constitution requires a national military, so please try again.

 

[xBiffx]

This is proof that Congress doesn't know how to represent the people. You have a concept that 90% of the population supports and it's likely dead. How ridiculous.

In a democracy, you would have a point.

 

[Juror No. 8]

How about our armed forces?

Texas or Indiana or Florida didn't fight in the war on terrorism, the United States did (and does).

LOL. By the way, how is that War on Terrorism™ going so far? Have we won yet? Is there any chance at all that the U.S. military will ever "win" it?

 

[zsdersw]

Seriously, you are going to use the military to counter my point. The constitution requires a national military, so please try again.

I'm countering only the incorrect statement of yours that I quoted.

 

[JEDIYoda]

This is proof that Congress doesn't know how to represent the people. You have a concept that 90% of the population supports and it's likely dead. How ridiculous.

not even close to 90%.............well under

 

[BoberFett]

How about our armed forces?

Texas or Indiana or Florida didn't fight in the war on terrorism, the United States did (and does).

In the case of the War on Terror, having states opt out would probably have been preferable.

The further government gets from those it represents, the less accountable it gets.

 

[BoberFett]

This is proof that Congress doesn't know how to represent the people. You have a concept that 90% of the population supports and it's likely dead. How ridiculous.

This is proof that people like thraashman are fucking idiots.

 

[zsdersw]

LOL. By the way, how is that War on Terrorism™ going so far? Have we won yet? Is there any chance at all that the U.S. military will ever "win" it?

You've completely missed the point.

The point is... there are times when we're fifty states with fifty agendas and there are times when we're one nation with one agenda and national needs. The military is an example of when it is best to have it "national"... as efforts against international and transnational enemies are best handled as one nation.

Biff's assertion that "the feds can't do anything more efficiently" is fundamentally incorrect for that very reason... among others. Yes, the feds can do some things more efficiently. That number of things is small, but it is not zero.

If the point still hasn't sunk in, remove War on Terror and put WW2 in. Did the United States (and allies) fight the Axis powers or did individual states?

 

[thraashman]

not even close to 90%.............well under

It seems that Americans disagree with you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/22/universal-background-checks-polls_n_2931683.html
http://news.yahoo.com/over-90-percent-americans-support-gun-background-checks-133548844.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/07/us-usa-guns-poll-idUSBRE9160LW20130207

 

[CPA]

Air traffic control?
Anything requiring national standards of safety/performance?

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/expectmore/rating/perform.html

why, pray tell, do we have to have federalized air traffic control?

 

[nehalem256]

This is proof that Congress doesn't know how to represent the people. You have a concept that 90% of the population supports and it's likely dead. How ridiculous.

Probably because a lot of them don't understand the ramifications for what UBCs mean as has been pointed out in this thread.

But the general idea "sounds good".

 

[nehalem256]

why, pray tell, do we have to have federalized air traffic control?

Because there are many flights between states.

 

[monovillage]

not even close to 90%.............well under

Maybe he meant 90% of the national media support it? Not that they're biased or anything.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

not even close to 90%.............well under

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Fist poll. 90%. Most others very close to or at 90 as well.

 

[Texashiker]

It seems that Americans disagree with you.

Huffpost is anti-gun, it seems like every few days they run some kind of article bashing gun rights.

Yahoo and reuters I dont keep up with.

And its funny how the poll on huffpost includes mostly blue states.

 

[thraashman]

Probably because a lot of them don't understand the ramifications for what UBCs mean as has been pointed out in this thread.

But the general idea "sounds good".

Finally, someone that actually debated my point instead of rattling off something stupid. As far as UBC's it should be approached from multiple angles. Is it constitutional, I personally don't see it as violating the Constitution, though I am not a constitutional scholar and neither is anyone else on this forum. Will it work in preventing those who shouldn't have guns from getting them. Do the people want it, which the answer would appear to be a resounding yes. Is the cost of implementing it prohibitive? Honestly I don't know on that one.

No idea should be implemented because it sounds good nor should it be rejected because someone doesn't like the feel of it. It should be honestly assessed. Of all the proposed gun control measures, this one seems to be the least invasive and the only one that might actually have a positive effect, so killing it would appear to be a bad idea.