TexasCHLforum.com

How is this not a back door mandatory registration? Obama's plan includes universal back ground checks. How will one be able to prove that you were submitted to a BGC? It seems as though this will be treated as a requirement to own a firearm, much like firearm permits in IL and NY.

Law enforcement comes into contact with average Joe for whatever reason, and under "reasonable suspicion" checks who is the owner of the said weapon(s) average Joe happens to be in possesion of to make sure he/she:
A: Is the legal registered owner of the gun; and
B: Submitted to a BGC to purchase said gun (or BGC per gun found in possesion).

This seems like a setup for registration to me. Maybe someone can prove/show otherwise?

Plus I don't understand how we expect a deal to be made by striking out the AWB and magazine limits for a whittled down version of the universal check (ie checks only at gun shows)? I mean do we really think they are that dumb? Here, tell you what, we're going to ask you to leave out these two proposals, and then in return we're going to give you one, but see it's not exactly what you want, but actually less? How's that sound? Heckuva deal right?

Aggie_engr wrote:How is this not a back door mandatory registration? Obama's plan includesuniversal back ground checks. How will one be able to prove that you were submitted to a BGC? It seems as though this will be treated as a requirement to own a firearm, much like firearm permits in IL and NY.

Law enforcement comes into contact with average Joe for whatever reason, and under "reasonable suspicion" checks who is the owner of the said weapon(s) average Joe happens to be in possesion of to make sure he/she:
A: Is the legal registered owner of the gun; and
B: Submitted to a BGC to purchase said gun (or BGC per gun found in possesion).

This seems like a setup for registration to me. Maybe someone can prove/show otherwise?

Plus I don't understand how we expect a deal to be made by striking out the AWB and magazine limits for a whittled down version of the universal check (ie checks only at gun shows)? I mean do we really think they are that dumb? Here, tell you what, we're going to ask you to leave out these two proposals, and then in return we're going to give you one, but see it's not exactly what you want, but actually less? How's that sound? Heckuva deal right?

I don't understand what you are getting at. Your hypothesis already postulates that the LEO is trying to determine if the person stopped is the legal owner of the gun. In Texas, that can't happen as there is no registration.

How will law enforcement be able to determine if someone is legally able to own a weapon (ie you have passed the federally mandated background check).

Editied to add: There has to be a way to connect the gun to the person who legally purchased it and passed a BGC.

Purplehood wrote:

Aggie_engr wrote:How is this not a back door mandatory registration? Obama's plan includesuniversal back ground checks. How will one be able to prove that you were submitted to a BGC? It seems as though this will be treated as a requirement to own a firearm, much like firearm permits in IL and NY.

Law enforcement comes into contact with average Joe for whatever reason, and under "reasonable suspicion" checks who is the owner of the said weapon(s) average Joe happens to be in possesion of to make sure he/she:
A: Is the legal registered owner of the gun; and
B: Submitted to a BGC to purchase said gun (or BGC per gun found in possesion).

This seems like a setup for registration to me. Maybe someone can prove/show otherwise?

Plus I don't understand how we expect a deal to be made by striking out the AWB and magazine limits for a whittled down version of the universal check (ie checks only at gun shows)? I mean do we really think they are that dumb? Here, tell you what, we're going to ask you to leave out these two proposals, and then in return we're going to give you one, but see it's not exactly what you want, but actually less? How's that sound? Heckuva deal right?

I don't understand what you are getting at. Your hypothesis already postulates that the LEO is trying to determine if the person stopped is the legal owner of the gun. In Texas, that can't happen as there is no registration.

Think of it this way:

You sell a gun that you bought new from Academy to Mr. X. You go through an FFL and do a background check when you buy it new. Ya'll go to ABC Gun Store to run Mr. X's background check and have them process the transfer. He subsequently goes on a killing spree that makes national news.

The first thing BATFE will do is determine the origins of the gun. They'll find the serial number, go the manufacturer, and ask which FFL they shipped it to (in this case it's Academy). They'll then go to Academy and ask to see the paperwork to find out who bought the gun. They'll then match that to a background check in NICS on the same date.

That's when they come to you.

You say, "No, I sold that gun to Mr. X. We went to ABC Gun store and he did a background check."

Where's the paper trail? Who has the burden of proof?

- Does ABC Gun Store have to call the manufacturer and tell them the gun has changed ownership?
This sounds like required registration held at the manufacturer.

- Do you have to perceptually keep your bill of sale or proof that Mr. X did a background check? For how long? For EVERY firearm you EVER sell? Is the burden of proof that the sale was done correctly on you? What if the gun store is bad at keeping records? Or it's damaged in a fire?
This sounds like a trap to me.

- Would the law anticipate this and have BATFE keep a database of all guns and their current owners?
That is registration.

- Does Mr. X have to keep proof of his background check? Forever? Well, in this scenario, I doubt he does.

Is the crime for buying a firearm without background check, for selling one without background check, or both?

How will they know WHICH gun he bought from you? If he buys one today and comes back to you in six months and trades for a different one, how is that updated? Where is it kept? Does he need a new background check and FFL transfer? Why? Couldn't you just say you sold him the 2nd gun in the first place? Probably not. . . because that serial number will be on record somewhere. It's de facto registration.

Logically, it HAS to be registered to enforce universal background checks for all private sales.

I may not be smart enough to think of a way to accomplish their goal without registration. Every angle I've considered, registration is the logical conclusion.

Aggie_engr wrote:How will law enforcement be able to determine if someone is legally able to own a weapon (ie you have passed the federally mandated background check).

Editied to add: There has to be a way to connect the gun to the person who legally purchased it and passed a BGC.

anygunanywhere wrote:

Robert*PPS wrote:I feel very enlightened by Anygun and Charles conversation (and all the others too). The ultimate goal is to swell the ranks of pro gunners so that the majority of politicians aren't in the position to flex from a hard-line stance in the first place. That will be our true victory. Until then, I think it's clear that slowing any advancement in gun control law is staying in the fight.

That Charles is one smart man.

If he and I were to get into a battle of wits mine would be the half-wit. I am glad he is on our side.

In his half reality hypothetical those legiscritters claimed that their constituents were demanding they do something so they were leaning towards the scenario.

I do not want to be one of those NRA lobbyists. They probably eat and drink real good. Regularly wash down ribeyes with good bourbon and light up a COhiba now and then.

I want to be one of those constituents that is a real pain. I want to be one of the constituents that those legiscritters thinks they need to do some pro gun stuff so I wil shut up.

But I won't shut up.

Who is with me?

Anygunanywhere

Anygun,

I am definately with you! I have been mulling over the letter I plan on sending my House Representative and both Senators. I am not very articulate when it comes to putting everything down on paper. I was wondering... Would any of the many smart, well informed and articulate members of this forum be interested in producing a type of "form letter" putting into precise words all of the very imoprtant legislative points we have been discussing in these threads? I think alot of us would be more than happy to forward it on to our congressional representatives. We need our voices heard LOUD!

Dear Congresscritter SoAndSo,

Recently there has been a lot of discussion about instituting new laws related to firearms. I am opposed to any infringement of my rights as a free citizen of the United States. I am particularly opposed to closing the so-called "gun show loophole". In reality, what this means is that I, as a private citizen, would not be allowed to sell a gun to a family member without subjecting them to a background check that would cost me money and time. I will be watching the progress of the various firearm related bills. I expect you, as my representative, to stand up for my rights and the rights of every free citizen in this wonderful country and not succumb to the emotional appeals of those who care more about show than substance.

Given the facts that we know about all recent shootings, I would ask that you examine closely the laws related to mental health and the administration of psychopharmaceuticals to young children. Every recent shooting has involved an individual with mental health issues and a history of taking drugs known to cause violent side effects. It seems to me that if our representatives really care about making a difference, these are the areas that will receive attention.

Your constituent,

Me.

Nice letter. Look forward to hearing the response.

baldeagle wrote:Dear Congresscritter SoAndSo,

Recently there has been a lot of discussion about instituting new laws related to firearms. I am opposed to any infringement of my rights as a free citizen of the United States. I am particularly opposed to closing the so-called "gun show loophole". In reality, what this means is that I, as a private citizen, would not be allowed to sell a gun to a family member without subjecting them to a background check that would cost me money and time. I will be watching the progress of the various firearm related bills. I expect you, as my representative, to stand up for my rights and the rights of every free citizen in this wonderful country and not succumb to the emotional appeals of those who care more about show than substance.

Given the facts that we know about all recent shootings, I would ask that you examine with great scrutiny the laws related to mental health and the administration of psychopharmaceuticals to young children. Every recent shooting has involved an individual with mental health issues and a history of taking drugs known to cause violent side effects. It seems to me that if our representatives really care about making a difference, these are the areas that will receive attention.

Your constituent,

Me.

I changed your wording in the red.

Comprimise eh so we give them background checks and they repeal the NFA. Thats fair and a comprimise what they are asking is a surrender of our rights.

baldeagle wrote:Dear Congresscritter SoAndSo,

Recently there has been a lot of discussion about instituting new laws related to firearms. I am opposed to any infringement of my rights as a free citizen of the United States. I am particularly opposed to closing the so-called "gun show loophole". In reality, what this means is that I, as a private citizen, would not be allowed to sell a gun to a family member without subjecting them to a background check that would cost me money and time. I will be watching the progress of the various firearm related bills. I expect you, as my representative, to stand up for my rights and the rights of every free citizen in this wonderful country and not succumb to the emotional appeals of those who care more about show than substance.

Given the facts that we know about all recent shootings, I would ask that you examine closely the laws related to mental health and the administration of psychopharmaceuticals to young children. Every recent shooting has involved an individual with mental health issues and a history of taking drugs known to cause violent side effects. It seems to me that if our representatives really care about making a difference, these are the areas that will receive attention.

Your constituent,

Me.

Thanks Baldeagle. Letters going out...