Just another stupid, liberal, feel-good, do-nothing idea.

End of story.

JackM on January 30, 2013 at 9:24 PM

.
No, we’d be better off if it were a “do-nothing” idea.

They want more Federal DOMINION over us, and this gives it to them. : (

How about some BACKGROUND CHECKS on Obama and his administration full of people who have genuine criminal histories??

landlines on January 30, 2013 at 6:10 PM

.
First we have to investigate YOU after a comment like that, to see if you’re a “racist”.

Understand this law: It is not about gun shows. It would BAN the transfer of guns to your heirs. It would ban militias and force registration of all arms.

Redglen on January 30, 2013 at 1:33 PM

.

Any Republican who votes for Universal background checks is voting for a Federal Firearms Registration Database.

thmsmgnm on January 30, 2013 at 6:06 PM

.
Dittos what both of you said.

The Progressives have always been in the “con-business”, and still are.

I’m with War Planner in the comments: “No problem with background checks; just no permanent registration of firearms.”

Have no idea why GOP and people like you fail to understand that background checks will be a “national registration database” in no time at all.

Really, REALLY, STUPID IDEA.

End of story.

Congress would have to mandate that people conduct background checks for private transfers. That’s not as onerous as it sounds; internet sales use federally-licensed dealers as brokers to handle the transaction, and dealers could offer that service for private transactions, too. It would add to the cost of the sale, but it’s not an insurmountable issue.

This would be a de facto firearm registration. Right now, if I buy a firearm, that information is given to the federal government. They’re supposed to destroy it, but I have no faith that actually occurs. Even with that illegal information, the government can’t identify the owners of specific guns, because I can sell my firearm.

If information about that sale also goes to the government, a simple spreadsheet with names and addresses will allow a targeted confiscation in the future, should outcry from some crisis like Sandy Hook permit the politicians to get away with it.

Congratulations, you just gave Dianne Feinstein and Charles Shumer the first orgasms of their dull, pasty lives.

NO COMPROMISE! MOLON LABE

The current AG has been pushing to keep the NICS records for 10 years, and many people still don’t think the NICS background check records are being destroyed or deleted now.

1) Remove restrictions on all citizens for carrying arms concealed or openly. If you are a US Citizen, over the age of 18, you can carry. Look up Vermont Carry.

2) Restrict “Gun Free Zones” to only those places that have two or more armed security personnel. This does not mean someone can’t carry a firearm there, just not in, oh, jail or prison. A school, without two armed security people, would not be allowed to restrict a parent, teacher, janitor, etc., from having a firearm on campus. Perhaps, as a bone to the Liberals (who aren’t really liberal) install a thumbscan safe in the classroom where the firearm can be stored safely. But you can keep it in your car.

3) People can keep firearms out of their homes, should they desire. I won’t even get snarky and require that they label their homes as “gun free zones” or anything. It is a choice..and if they don’t want a firearm there, OK. It’s a Right, not a Requirement.

Just three starting proposals.

SWalker on January 29, 2013 at 7:59 PM

While that position has been argued and won before the USSC, in regard to some of the Amendmends, the Bill of Rights was intended to restrain the federal government, not the state governments.

petefrt on January 29, 2013 at 10:21 PM

WRONG ANSWER. The Amendments to the US Constitution are the Supreme Law of the Land. No State is afforded the right to exempt themselves from any Amendment to the US Constitution.

SWalker on January 29, 2013 at 10:27 PM

Read the other guy’s post, then read yours. It aw sbbeing discussed becaus eye brought it up. You emphatically said he was wrong. He wasn’t. You were. Still are. And are now wrong about the issue being brought up.

Sheesh, just man up and admit it.

A background check can’t be one thing for one issue and another thing when it’s something Obama is permissive on. And since the second Amendment is a constitutional law, we should also have equal restriction applied at the federal level against abortion. I think we ought to find some “Privacy” in the constitution for gun owners.

Malachi45 on January 30, 2013 at 12:33 AM

On the contrary, what I said is 100 percent correct, until you can get Incorporation overturned all you are doing is ranting.

SWalker on January 30, 2013 at 2:35 AM

No, what you corrected was the statement from someone who said the BoR originally did not apply to the states. He was correct, it didn’t. You were not correct. Much of it has been incorporated by now and none of us disagreed with that fact, even though I dispute what the SCOTUS has done. Go back and read what you corrected.

Malachi45 on January 30, 2013 at 8:36 AM

Wrong answer, please try again. There was no “BoR originally did not apply to the states” in our conversation at all. The discussion was what is the law, and has it been for our entire lifetimes. We were not discussing fantasy team historic what if’s.

Guv. Jerry Brown sounds like he’s first in line:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/30/California-No-Money-To-Disarm-Roughly-20-000-Felons-And-Mentally-Ill-People

o Ed Morrissey doesn’t have a problem with the government intruding on a private sale between individuals. Glad that’s on record.

Indeed. What part of “shall not be infringed” is so confusing to you, Ed?

That seems even easier to understand than the 2nd! Managing and limiting personal property is not one of them…

Congress would have to mandate that people conduct background checks for private transfers. That’s not as onerous as it sounds

The hell it’s not, joker.

Another thing to consider with this ‘universal background check’ is that if they start keeping the info to compile a record, will they then decide to gang up for limiting the number of guns someone can own. The background checks done now are supposed to be destroyed within 48 hours. We already know Holder doesn’t like to do that. As long as we have a prezzy who wants to pick and choose which laws he breaks and which he enforces, we’ll have chaos.

Kissmygrits on January 30, 2013 at 9:33 AM

What’s to stop them from simply declining your permission to own a gun if they ‘decide’ you’ve bought too many?

If they can make those background checks expansive to unknown depths on the data on your life, what’s to stop them from simply citing unknown reason for that decline and citing ‘privacy’ concerns as the reason for not telling you?

[I can easily see them using that type of rationale, just to twist the knife a little more]

While that position has been argued and won before the USSC, in regard to some of the Amendmends, the Bill of Rights was intended to restrain the federal government, not the state governments.

Except the first 9 Amendments are individual rights in which State, local,and federal laws cannot infringe upon (even though the Supreme Court) has a history of doing)