White House Floats Background Check Ideas

[Chucktshoes]

52 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

Here is an example from a bill that was VETOED in New Hampshire. I have linked the full info but just posted what I thought was the pertinent part. Had this bill passed in our state, it would have made a sale on this forum between private parties, a Commercial sale. And that is what they attempted to do in NH.

 

 

So, pretty much exactly like I called it. It’s nice to know I’m not too crazy. 

[Cruel Hand Luke]

4 hours ago, DaveTN said:

Maybe I missed what you said before, fill us in. What’s one got to do with the other? We have HCP’s with background checks. The state doesn’t ask or know what we have.

And the state knows you have a permit.....because they keep track of ALL permits they issue.... so no one has a permit that has not been vetted..... because the state issues the permit and there were not 20 million permits in private hands before they started doing background checks. You are right the permit and the "universal" background check on gun sales have nothing to do with each other. 

To have a "universal" background check on all sales you have to have a list of who has what and track ownership to know who has what to prove whether someone has gotten something without a background check being done. You know what has Universal background checks? NFA items. So to truly have "universal" background checks you'd have to have a "registry" of ALL firearms and update who has what to know whether people sold something without doing a background check.....and even then, that NFA registry does nothing about all the unregistered machine guns that were brought back from WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam (and that got in the country other ways or were home built) . But ALL "transferable" NFA items are (at least theoretically) accounted for by the NFA registry. 

If a "universal background check" does not account for ALL guns then there is really no way of the govt knowing whether a check was done or not if it was not sold as a "retail sale" .  Now this is apparently just supposed to cover "commercial sales" (for now) but that still leaves a private sale "loophole" that the only way to close is a national registry...... 

Edited September 19, 2019 by Cruel Hand Luke

[DaveTN]

27 minutes ago, Cruel Hand Luke said:

And the state knows you have a permit.....because they keep track of ALL permits they issue.... so no one has a permit that has not been vetted..... because the state issues the permit and there were not 20 million permits in private hands before they started doing background checks. You are right the permit and the "universal" background check on gun sales have nothing to do with each other. 

To have a "universal" background check on all sales you have to have a list of who has what and track ownership to know who has what to prove whether someone has gotten something without a background check being done. You know what has Universal background checks? NFA items. So to truly have "universal" background checks you'd have to have a "registry" of ALL firearms and update who has what to know whether people sold something without doing a background check.....and even then, that NFA registry does nothing about all the unregistered machine guns that were brought back from WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam (and that got in the country other ways or were home built) . But ALL "transferable" NFA items are (at least theoretically) accounted for by the NFA registry. 

If a "universal background check" does not account for ALL guns then there is really no way of the govt knowing whether a check was done or not if it was not sold as a "retail sale" .  Now this is apparently just supposed to cover "commercial sales" (for now) but that still leaves a private sale "loophole" that the only way to close is a national registry...... 

Certainly they would have a way of knowing; they simply go to the dealer where you did the transfer.

The “Universal Background Check” as you well know is simply a term for doing away with private sales without the check. If you look at my last post on page 1 with the link to the NH bill you will see that your assumption about what commercial means is not necessarily correct.

If LE wanted to charge someone with selling a gun without a background check they would need evidence to do so. If a person was charged with that, and didn’t do it, simply knowing the date, and location of the transferring dealer would clear that right up; just as it would now.

However, if you are right then this whole issue is just an exercise in drama. Anything that creates a national database of guns would not pass Congress; so it’s a non-issue.

[TGO David]

7 hours ago, DaveTN said:

Here is an example from a bill that was VETOED in New Hampshire. I have linked the full info but just posted what I thought was the pertinent part. Had this bill passed in our state, it would have made a sale on this forum between private parties, a Commercial sale. And that is what they attempted to do in NH.

 

 

 

7 hours ago, Chucktshoes said:

So, pretty much exactly like I called it. It’s nice to know I’m not too crazy. 

 

What you guys are missing is that this doesn't put the burden of enforcing background checks on the venue hosting the gun show, or the print or online publication wherein a For Sale listing was placed.  Those entities, much like TGO, aren't the ones doing the transacting.  YOU guys are.

YOU are the ones who will be viewed as operating in commercial capacities.

Suppose you two randomly bump into each other at an Arby's fast food restaurant and somehow end up talking about guns.  Dave says he likes guns, ChuckTShoes says he has one he'd like to sell, Dave says he'd love to buy it, and suddenly commerce occurs.

The way your logic has been going in this thread, Arby's restaurant suddenly is in the commercial business of firearms sales and has to ensure that a background check occurs because you guys met on their property, formed a temporary relationship for the sake of commerce, and money changed hands.

Absurd, right?

Same as if happened here, on Armslist, on Gunbroker, or anywhere else.

TGO isn't going to be expected to reclassify itself.  YOU guys are.  That's why we all need to be lighting our torches, sharpening our pitchforks, and telling our President and other elected representatives that we know where the hell to find them come election season if they allow this garbage to pass.

 

[Chucktshoes]

4 hours ago, TGO David said:

 

 

What you guys are missing is that this doesn't put the burden of enforcing background checks on the venue hosting the gun show, or the print or online publication wherein a For Sale listing was placed.  Those entities, much like TGO, aren't the ones doing the transacting.  YOU guys are.

YOU are the ones who will be viewed as operating in commercial capacities.

Suppose you two randomly bump into each other at an Arby's fast food restaurant and somehow end up talking about guns.  Dave says he likes guns, ChuckTShoes says he has one he'd like to sell, Dave says he'd love to buy it, and suddenly commerce occurs.

The way your logic has been going in this thread, Arby's restaurant suddenly is in the commercial business of firearms sales and has to ensure that a background check occurs because you guys met on their property, formed a temporary relationship for the sake of commerce, and money changed hands.

Absurd, right?

Same as if happened here, on Armslist, on Gunbroker, or anywhere else.

TGO isn't going to be expected to reclassify itself.  YOU guys are.  That's why we all need to be lighting our torches, sharpening our pitchforks, and telling our President and other elected representatives that we know where the hell to find them come election season if they allow this garbage to pass.

 

I don’t think either one of us is saying that it places the burden of record keeping on TGO or the gun show, but I’ll only speak for myself from here forward. 

This proposal wouldn’t reclassify TGO or similar entities. It also wouldn’t cause the Arby’s scenario you laid out. TGO already is a commercial entity that provides space for the buying and selling of items, to include firearms. It places no new burdens on the already existing commercial entity, but it does reclassify the transaction itself based upon the involvement of that commercial entity. That is what would then provide the new burden on those taking part in said transactions to seek out the services of a transfer agent.

The Arby’s scenario is absurd because Arby’s doesn’t provide space for the purpose of entering into private transactions of firearms nor the listing of firearms for sale. TGO, gun shows, online sales ad sites, etc. do. 

Once again, I agree with you that this is BAD. It’s very, very bad. It’s bad enough that me, mister anarchist who doesn’t vote or generally dirty his hands with direct politics action, is imploring folks to get in touch with their Congress critters to ensure they understand the political consequences of supporting this. This proposal is only a quarter step from UBCs and half a step from creating a registry. It’s every kind of bad we’ve been expecting for a hot minute and it’s time to go to work to prevent it. 

[DaveTN]

14 hours ago, TGO David said:

What you guys are missing ....

Like Chucktshoes, I’m not saying I think it would be a commercial transaction because it’s on a Web site, or that the web site would handle any part of it. I posted the bill that I did to show that it depends on what they define a commercial sale to be. No one cares what Webster defines it has; that has zero impact. The law would be whatever was defined in the text. But the way I read that bill anything that was advertised was a commercial sale.

Under that bill your Arby’s scenario would be a private non-commercial sale and not require a background check. For that reason, I doubt it would make it though the current House of Representatives.

That bill was VETOED, and I only used it as an example of how the word “Commercial” could be legislated to mean something other than what we generally think of.

I don’t think any legislation that leaves any private transfer, sale or not, possible will make it through the house. Except for immediate family members, and they may no even go for that.

I think most Americans simply think prohibiting criminals and mental cases from being able to buy guns is a good idea. The Democrats would like to take that one step farther and tie liability to anyone allowing advertising. They want to destroy all gun forums and gun sale sites. If Trump is the anti-gun President some here claim he is; they may get what they want. If he is not; he will not allow it to happen. That is, if it made it though the Senate; which it wouldn’t.

However….this was just a memo. Barr hasn’t come up with anything legislators haven’t thought of. But since he doesn’t have to worry about being reelected; he can be more open about it.