MNGunTalk.com

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/18/white-house-doj-gun-control-proposal-includes-universal-background-checks/
White House, DOJ Gun Control Proposal Includes Universal Background Checks

But does it?

The document clearly shows the White House and DOJ adopting the structure of the Manchin-Toomey gun control bill as a guide: “Consistent with the Manchin-Toomey-draft legislation, a background check requirement would be extended to all commercial sales, including sales at gun shows.”

Maybe I'm wrong, but if you're engaged in commercial sales of firearms, aren't you required to be an FFL?

jdege wrote:https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/18/white-house-doj-gun-control-proposal-includes-universal-background-checks/
White House, DOJ Gun Control Proposal Includes Universal Background Checks

But does it?

The document clearly shows the White House and DOJ adopting the structure of the Manchin-Toomey gun control bill as a guide: “Consistent with the Manchin-Toomey-draft legislation, a background check requirement would be extended to all commercial sales, including sales at gun shows.”

Maybe I'm wrong, but if you're engaged in commercial sales of firearms, aren't you required to be an FFL?

I heard this, not sure if it is true, I also suspect the writer of the article has an interesting definition for the word "comercial".

My understanding is that the proposal requires a seller to either keep the bill of sale, essentially forever, or process the sale through an FFL to record the sale.

And that Trump hasn't agreed to it, it's being pushed by some of the WH staff.

And that the end goal seems to put out a proposal that the anti-gun groups will reject.

I saw a Tweet from Trump, that I can not find again, saying Francis was making it hard to pass gun control because people think the dems want to confiscate guns.

Grayskies wrote:I saw a Tweet from Trump, that I can not find again, saying Francis was making it hard to pass gun control because people think the dems want to confiscate guns.

Think?

To email Trump go to.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

https://youtu.be/hh_49elO4Rg

Lott talking about this and this he would like to change.

Grayskies wrote:
https://youtu.be/hh_49elO4Rg

Lott talking about this and this he would like to change.

He needs to get over his uh issue. Can't listen to that, almost as bad as the um people.

Holland&Holland wrote:

Grayskies wrote:
https://youtu.be/hh_49elO4Rg

Lott talking about this and this he would like to change.

He needs to get over his uh issue. Can't listen to that, almost as bad as the um people.

I prefer the "Uh" or "um" pople far more than the "like" people.

Every time I hear today's kids saying something with "like" every few words, it simply drives me crazy

Like is on the list too

To be honest, if they clarified what transfer means (ie lending a gun to a person for purposes of hunting/shooting in your company is not a transfer); and they made the instant check a pass/no pass (no delays for private sakes); clarifies that the check has no connection with a gun type/SN; and made it cost free with a code for you to keep for your records for a designated short time (7 years seems reasonable, as that is your tax record requirement) that would seem to ensure you did due diligence.

Without tracking or mandating SN or gun type recording in the paperwork, it’s not any kind of registration.

Of course, this is a compromise that allows folks of good character to prove they tried to ensure that an unsafe person didn’t acquire a weapon without giving the hoplophobes any more control over folks, so that would make it a nonstarter for them.

crbutler wrote:To be honest, if they clarified what transfer means (ie lending a gun to a person for purposes of hunting/shooting in your company is not a transfer); and they made the instant check a pass/no pass (no delays for private sakes); clarifies that the check has no connection with a gun type/SN; and made it cost free with a code for you to keep for your records for a designated short time (7 years seems reasonable, as that is your tax record requirement) that would seem to ensure you did due diligence.

Without tracking or mandating SN or gun type recording in the paperwork, it’s not any kind of registration.

Of course, this is a compromise that allows folks of good character to prove they tried to ensure that an unsafe person didn’t acquire a weapon without giving the hoplophobes any more control over folks, so that would make it a nonstarter for them.

1) The only way UBCs work is with a gun registry, with out that how do they know who broke the law?

2) As for loans that is easily exploited, I could loan my brother a gun and he could loan me $500 and both of us never repay the other.

3) The cost of back ground checks, there are states with really high back ground check costs $125 and more.

4) The false positives in the back ground check system is unacceptably high! Legal fees to fight a false positive can be spendy!

5) There is no compromise with the anti-2a types, they want all your guns.

Grayskies wrote:

crbutler wrote:To be honest, if they clarified what transfer means (ie lending a gun to a person for purposes of hunting/shooting in your company is not a transfer); and they made the instant check a pass/no pass (no delays for private sakes); clarifies that the check has no connection with a gun type/SN; and made it cost free with a code for you to keep for your records for a designated short time (7 years seems reasonable, as that is your tax record requirement) that would seem to ensure you did due diligence.

Without tracking or mandating SN or gun type recording in the paperwork, it’s not any kind of registration.

Of course, this is a compromise that allows folks of good character to prove they tried to ensure that an unsafe person didn’t acquire a weapon without giving the hoplophobes any more control over folks, so that would make it a nonstarter for them.

1) The only way UBCs work is with a gun registry, with out that how do they know who broke the law?

2) As for loans that is easily exploited, I could loan my brother a gun and he could loan me $500 and both of us never repay the other.

3) The cost of back ground checks, there are states with really high back ground check costs $125 and more.

4) The false positives in the back ground check system is unacceptably high! Legal fees to fight a false positive can be spendy!

5) There is no compromise with the anti-2a types, they want all your guns.

This is the core issue. Kinda like negotiating with terrorists. Once they realize they can get what they want they never stop wanting and getting more.

It actually matters based on what your goals are.

If your goal is giving a private sale guy a bit of peace of mind that he sold the gun to an upstanding individual, that proposition works well.

After twiddle dumb does something bad, they will be able to tell that he obtained a gun legally (cross reference his identification with the system). If he got it legally, he got it legally and it’s the .gov’s problem if they didn’t do the data entry.

Tracing the gun through it’s multiple owners does nothing re crime, you ain’t putting the bullets back in it.

It’s an affirmative defense against your being charged with illegal sales- here is my proceed confirmation.

The loan part is for in your presence- no need to do a form if you take Billy to the range or hunting... not give possession of the gun to Uncle Tom for a month... more or less actually defining what is borrowing vs. what pawning/trading/gifting is.

I do realize this is unacceptable to the progressives, but it does make for better transfer safety and by avoiding charging the gun owners for it, it would make it easy to comply with.

If we offered it up, when the progs refuse it, it demonstrates to the uninitiated and even some of the less hoplophobic gun control advocates what the true agenda clearly is... registration as a preliminary to confiscation.

The lack of registry doesn’t make this “not work”; rather it makes the crime be on the illegal purchaser’s end only, not on some guy who was lied to. I could care less how an ineligible person got a gun, I want them punished for having it and using it inappropriately- they are the ones that committed a crime...

crbutler wrote:It actually matters based on what your goals are.

If your goal is giving a private sale guy a bit of peace of mind that he sold the gun to an upstanding individual, that proposition works well.

After twiddle dumb does something bad, they will be able to tell that he obtained a gun legally (cross reference his identification with the system). If he got it legally, he got it legally and it’s the .gov’s problem if they didn’t do the data entry.

Tracing the gun through it’s multiple owners does nothing re crime, you ain’t putting the bullets back in it.

It’s an affirmative defense against your being charged with illegal sales- here is my proceed confirmation.

The loan part is for in your presence- no need to do a form if you take Billy to the range or hunting... not give possession of the gun to Uncle Tom for a month... more or less actually defining what is borrowing vs. what pawning/trading/gifting is.

I do realize this is unacceptable to the progressives, but it does make for better transfer safety and by avoiding charging the gun owners for it, it would make it easy to comply with.

If we offered it up, when the progs refuse it, it demonstrates to the uninitiated and even some of the less hoplophobic gun control advocates what the true agenda clearly is... registration as a preliminary to confiscation.

The lack of registry doesn’t make this “not work”; rather it makes the crime be on the illegal purchaser’s end only, not on some guy who was lied to. I could care less how an ineligible person got a gun, I want them punished for having it and using it inappropriately- they are the ones that committed a crime...

I dis-agree,
1) You want an affirmative defense sell to some one with a p2c or permit to purchase, There are laws reguarding this and they work well as is.

2) Loans, that does not cover all circumstances for loans. Say your sister's soon to be ex is threatening her, you could not loan her a revolver. Unless you want to camp out at her house 24/7. Say a friend is house sitting for you, they would be in possession of your guns (in a safe or not) so you would have do a transfer for each gun too them and back too you when you returned. say...

3) How does the government know you broke the UBC law unless they know who owns the guns, that is a registry.

4) Throwing the the anti-2a crowd crumbs to appease them never works they always want more, their goal is and has always been a ban on all guns. In the People's Republic of Kalifornia you have to pay for and go through a back ground check to buy ammunition, you don't think that is next?

5) If this is offered up and they refuse it would be spun as we are unwilling to support "common sense gun legislation".

6) It is already illegal for a prohibited possessor to possess a gun, how does making it "Illegaler" do anything?

7) For the anti-2a crowd, this is not about gun-violence this is just another step to "HELL YES WE ARE GOING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS!", If it was about gun violence why is no one talking about say... Chicago?

8) There is a crap-ton more reasons why this is a bad idea and will hurt people like us and do nothing to stop any gun violence...