By Rachel Malone

Currently, any private seller can get a background check on any private transaction. The law already prohibits sales to people who are banned from owning guns. Gun Owners of America opposes any legislative policy move to add additional requirements, incentives or processes to increase background checks on private sales.

1) Background checks accidentally keep good guys from buying guns.

Most background check denials are mistakes. (See bit.ly/334ZXIk.) The National Instant Criminal Background Check system is already a mess; nearly 95% of denials are false positives. So, expanded checks are more likely to keep guns away from the law-abiding than from criminals.

2) Background checks hurt minorities.

Minorities are wrongly denied disproportionately to others. People are often denied because their names sound or look similar to names of the actual criminals who are banned from guns.

“These mistakes affect certain racial groups more than others. Hispanics are more likely to share names with other Hispanics; the same is true of blacks. Because 30 percent of black males have criminal records that prevent them from buying guns, law-abiding African-American men more often have their names confused with those of prohibited people.” (John Lott, bit.ly/2MdqvjF

3) Background checks hurt veterans.

Over 250,000 veterans who need help handling their finances were added to NICS even though their disabilities likely shouldn’t preclude gun ownership.

4) Background checks create a gun registry.

Requiring background checks for private sales cannot effectively be accomplished without creating a gun registry. Gun owners will stand strong against any move toward a gun registry.

5) Background checks don’t stop criminals.

Addressing mass murders by expanding background checks wrongly suggests gun ownership is the problem when evil hearts are the problem. Criminals will still find ways to get guns: straw purchases, other illegal purchases, stealing, even stealing from police — or they’ll use other weapons for their crimes.

“In my book, The War on Guns, I find states with these background checks experienced an increase of 15 percent in per capita rates of mass public shooting fatalities. They also saw a 38 percent increase in the injury rate. Nor is there evidence that expanded background checks reduce rates of any type of violent crime, including mass public shootings, suicide, the murder of police officers and domestic violence against women.” (John Lott, bit.ly/2MdqvjF)

 

Rachel Malone is Texas Director for Gun Owners of America.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

80 COMMENTS

  1. Good guy buys a gun completely legally and legitimately.

    30 years later that guys passes away and his son inherits that gun.

    The sons’ home is broken into and the safe that stores that gun is forced open. That gun leaves the home and is now considered stolen.

    The burglar/thief uses that gun for the next five weeks in the commision of:
    3 armed robberies
    1 attempted sexual assault
    2 murders

    in a drug deal gone bad, that person loses the gun and it is then in the hands of another murder who then keeps it for almost a year.

    That person sells it to a younger gang member for drug money

    that gang member uses that gun in an attempted armed robbery at a gas station but fails and get arrested. At which point this gun is now in the hands of the FBI.

    FBI is only able to see the original buyer decades ago.
    —————————————————————————————————–
    Now. Let’s be honest here. This Universal Background Check might very well produce documentation of the father-to-son transaction and maybe that fact that is was stolen but that’s it. All crime related activity (aside from the original theft) would be impossible to trace. The bad guys are not going to comply. Make as many laws as you want. The bad guys are NOT going to comply.

    • Parnell, Not to pick a nit, but in the scenario you described the FBI would not end up with possession of the firearm. No federal crime committed. It would be in the hands of local law enforcement. The only way the federal government would become aware of this weapon is if the recovering agency requested an ATF firearms trace. This would only lead to the original purchaser. That can be helpful in solving the original theft. Sometimes. Been there. Done that. Got several T-shirts.

      • Your right….that is nit picking.

        The specific details don’t matter in this purely hypothetical scenario. The point is that these UBC’s are not effective in saving lives or reducing crime (much less stopping it).

        • Prndll, yes it does matter. We rip the other side a new asshole when they get their facts wrong. Let’s keep ours correct. (Picking the nit was just a figure of speech to lighten the criticism. So here it is without the sugar coating.) You got it all wrong.

      • Well, technically, the FBI has jurisdiction for Native American lands. So, if the gas station was on Native American land …..

    • You forgot even if they established a chain of custody they wouldn’t charge anyone anyways probably.

    • Why does a background check require the serial number or even the type of weapon being transferred? Is the background of the firearm being checked?

      If we are truly just wanting to verify a legal transfer based on the individual, than the 4473 shouldn’t include anything about the identification of the weapon.

      • It’s my understanding that the serial number of any particular gun isn’t given during the NICS check.
        If a particular gun is traced, what happens is the manufacturer is contacted, the gun is traced to a particular FFL holder (sometimes a distributor is in this line of holders of the gun), who can then check his records to see who he sold it to. From there, that original purchaser can say who he sold it to, and so forth down the line of legal purchasers.
        Unless, of course, the seller of that gun sells it to someone he doesn’t know, like at a gun show, for example. The line then stops there, even though the buyer is legally able to purchase and posses the gun, and may transfer it legally to someone else.
        Even ATF traces only work so well.

          • Perry: the 4473 isn’t transmitted to the ATF until the gun shop that sold the gun goes out of business (or otherwise has a requirement to do so).
            So, during a trace on the gun, the ATF would already have the gun, and would call the manufacturer of the gun, who would tell the ATF who it sent the gun to, who would then tell the ATF who they sent the gun to, and so on until the last known owner.
            Who would possibly relate the sad story of a tragic boating accident, and tell the ATF they it’s extremely lucky that some SCUBA diver found the gun, and the gun was restored to shooting condition, obviously.

        • That still doesn’t answer the question; what does a background check on the individual acquiring the firearm have anything to do with the type or identification of the firearm? NICS isn’t checking the legality or history of the firearm, right?

          Point is; if the individual acquiring a firearm is being confirmed as to be legally “approved” by the government to keep and bear arms, than the only information needed is the individual’s name or other personal identification and nothing about what is being transferred.

          • ” Point is; if the individual acquiring a firearm is being confirmed as to be legally “approved” by the government to keep and bear arms, than the only information needed is the individuals name or other personal identification and nothing about what is being transferred.”

            NICS is not the controlling law, regarding 4473. The 4473 is a proof of sale document, in that an FFL is required to record what was sold to whom. The 4473, then serves as a form to use in researching the criminal history of the buyer.

            As I have been informed, the actual gun and serial number are not transmitted to the feds during NICS checks, as the 4473 can be used as a general background check form, even if no firearm is involved.

            The FFL must retain the record of the actual firearm (if any) sold to a buyer. Allegedly, the type and serial number of the firearm is used by ATF to “trace” a weapon found at a crime scene. ATF calls the manufacturer, relays the type and serial number. The manufacturer reports who the firearm was sold to, and the trace is on from there.

            Whether or not a firearm found abandoned at a crime scene has ever been traced to a perp, well….that information is sketchy at best (using public tools to research the question).

    • “It’s already illegal to sell a gun to someone who’s prohibited from purchasing one.”

      No shit. A background check figures that out for you. Most people buying a gun for crime don’t tell you they’re going to use it during the commission of a felony.

      • Well, actually, Sir, yes I am a criminal. But I won’t commit any crimes with THIS gun. I already have several “hot” weapons, for my criminal activities. I’m buying THIS gun, so that when the cops question me, I have a perfectly legal weapon that they can’t take from me!! /sarcasm ;^)

      • “Currently, any private seller can get a background check on any private transaction.”

        Huh? How exactly? Private persons not holding the FFL have no access to the NICS.

        • “Huh? How exactly? Private persons not holding the FFL have no access to the NICS.”

          Simply find an FFL willing to do background checks for non-customers.

          • “Sam, the procedure is spelled out here:”

            Private sale through FFL was how I got my plinker. Took about 15min for “permission” to buy. Took much longer to do the form properly (I had lotsa questions).

        • “any private seller can get an FFL to run a background check on any private transaction” is at least one step removed from “Currently, any private seller can get a background check on any private transaction.”

          Unless you have a list of FFLs that’ll do a NICS check for free in the parking lot on a 7-11 at 2pm on a sunday afternoon, there’s a pretty big difference between those two statements.

        • Totally wrong, phone your local sheriffs department, they ( if not to busy) can and will run a number for you …done it many times

  2. Obviously the answer is more bureaucracy so the government can get it right this time. With a “slight” increase in fees to pay for the extra staff.

    Or maybe just enforce existing laws against criminals rather than Chicago style catch and release.

  3. If they could use fingerprints and anonymous ID numbers maybe…but the list would be incomplete…and criminals would still find a way…

  4. #6. Because background checks don’t have any beneficial effect and are a waste of finite law enforcement resources.

    • Exactly! I am an 88 year old woman, my Dad served in WW2 in the British Army, and I was around when Hitler confiscated his people’s guns and later used them against those who disagreed with him and his Nazi regime.

  6. Background checks are useless and anybody too dangerous to be trusted with a gun is too dangerous to be roaming around in public anyway. Let the nonviolent felons have their guns back; lock up or execute the rest. And for the hundreds of millions of normal people with guns, just leave us alone already.

    Oh and as long as we DO have background checks, anybody who shows up in the store with a gun should be permitted to buy all the guns he wants with no check. He already has a gun to use if he wants to commit a crime, what difference does it make if he buys more??

  7. Here we go, once again, down the only road we’ve ever known.

    Yet another post filled with facts and logic. When we we admit that negotiating, or trying to make a deal with the mentally defective (Leftists, liberals, statists, authoritarians, Dimwitocrats, gun grabbers) is just a complete waste of time (like fighting with a pig…you know how that goes). The mentally defective have an entirely different and bizarre frame of reference (“logic”, if you will). From that standpoint, they speak perfect gibberish, while from that standpoint, we speak perfect gibberish.

    For some reason, we (POTG) seem to think there is a cosmic judge reviewing the claims of pro and anti gun people, adjudicating “truth”, and declaring a winner. Instead we may have developed our own cocoon of logic that appeals to only those who already agree with us.

    Anti-gunners appeal to politicians whose interest in preserving the Second Amendment is, at worst, indifferent. Pro-2A people appeal to politicians whose interest in preserving the Second Amendment is, at best, indifferent.

    Anti-gun people are organized around a single goal. Pro-gun people are organized around only our singular, individual goals. To warp a phrase, defenders of the Second Amendment believe that good, virtuous ideas have a power all their own, once spoken.

    The anti-gun mob have, knowingly or not, adopted one of the classic rules of warfare: concentration of mass/concentration of effect. That is, focus the weight of your force on an enemy, at a point where positive outcome is most likely (Sun Tsu would posit: strike when/where the enemy is weak). To this end, the enemy (anti-gunners) is focused on the lack of an emotional argument for private ownership of firearms, by the supporters of the Second Amendment. The pro-2A people (not forces) are in general disarray, in that there is no single, coherent emotional appeal that persuades the public that the Second Amendment is something of real importance and value….to the people the pro-gun advocates are trying to persuade. Not only do pro-gun advocates lack an emotional argument, we lack organization to fashion an argument, and carry it home.

    Borrowing again from superior intelligence (Johnathan Winters), “We’ve go to get organized”. There are organizations who will defend anti-gun laws and regulations, but there are not enough to attack all along the line, all the time. What is missing is a host of organizations who train 2A defenders on how to organize for themselves, how to muster rallies, how to find weaknesses in the anti-gun arsenal that can be exploited…using the very tactics and techniques used against 2A defenders.

    I keep harping back to the pro-gun rally at Tallahassee, FL in April 2018 – 500 attendees from around the entire state. Merely announcing a rally apparently does not motivate the faithful to adjust personal schedules so as to be at such a rally. We need organizations that can educate pro-gun advocates on how to succeed at messaging, and changing the direction of a culture (anti-gun legislation and messaging). We complain about how the anti-gun mafia is backed by organized billionaires, yet we do not look to find strong organizations to back our protection of the Second Amendment (are there no billionaires who defend the Second Amendment?).

      • “Here I Go Again

        Whitesnake, 1987

        Featuring Tawny Kitaen as “The Hood Ornament”

        Oh, *yes* 🙂

        “She was gonna be an actress, she was gonna be a star, she was gonna shake her ass, on the hood of White Snake’s car. Her yellow SUV, is now the enemy…”

        ‘Bowling For Soup’ – 1985

        (And Tawny still has ‘it’…)

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K38xNqZvBJI

    • Poor analogy, probably used before: the Dem voter is like a socialist zombie. The moderates and our youth are the un-infected. The POTG are protectors, but have to teach others how not to become infected. Some protectors have it easy and have not experienced what its like to fight, but some struggle and may soon be overwhelmed. The zombies will not die, but multiply if we don’t increase our strength in numbers.
      Back to reality, we need to stop preaching to the choir and start convincing moderates and our youth the importance of the 2A and what it represents. We can do this by leveraging social media, take them out to the shooting range, bombard them with facts, statistics, background info on crooked Dem Politicians.

      • “We can do this by leveraging social media, take them out to the shooting range, bombard them with facts, statistics, background info on crooked Dem Politicians.”

        This is the favored tactic for visitors here. Underlying the approach is the theory that good ideas virtually sell themselves; tell someone the truth, and send them on their way. This is not how we gained the losing side of the politics of the Second Amendment. The anti-gunners train, indoctrinate, school, and hand-hold their adherents, en masse, through events and organizations dedicated to preparing minions to buy the koolaid. The anti-gun message is relentless, and the outlets for that propaganda almost limitless. 2A defenders continue to follow the one-at-a-time conversion theme, which will take forever, all the while losing ground.

        We don’t need to be looking for unicorns/moderates/undecideds, we need to provide the messaging, everywhere, all at once (just like the anti-gunners). We need to cultivate large numbers of unaligned voters, not buttonhole one here and there. We have no organizations that exist solely to show people how to organize groups, organize events, organize campaigns. We need more than one-on-one conversation. We need a mass effort to re-capture all the gun owners, not just POTG.

        Time is not on our side.

    • I agree with most of your post. But I do we think we actually have a strong emotional argument that we simply don’t utilize enough. That is conceal carry, particularly conceal carry by women. I think that argument is an effective one and I’ve personally witnessed it shut down every anti gunner I’ve come across. No matter how liberal, how socialist, how woke, how feminist, there is NO one that can really make a proper argument against why can’t women carry guns for protection. I think this particular argument we can use to shutdown a ton of anti rhetoric. From what I’ve seen, both conceal and open carry are our heaviest weapons against the antis. Why? Conceal carry puts more fence sitters and liberals with skin in the gun rights game. Carrying continues to grow in popularity across the societal spectrum in all states where it’s reasonably easy to attain. Women, gays, minorities, liberals, ect… are all carrying more. And what are they Carrying? Semi autos. “Hi capacity” semi autos. As much as I love my old school 1911/revolver life, I’m the first to admit that the Proliferation of wonder 9’s is actually helping the cause of gun rights. When talking bans among anyone, virtually no one ever dares talking about banning handguns. Handguns popularity is just too immense. So, we need to continue to exploit this avenue and use it to expand that same “feeling” towards women carrying and “cool” handguns towards the greater meaning of the 2A and all other firearms.

      • “No matter how liberal, how socialist, how woke, how feminist, there is NO one that can really make a proper argument against why can’t women carry guns for protection.”

        You haven’t talked to enough anti-gunners. The basic response is that women are too small, too frail, to well-meaning, too nurturing, too timid, to actually shoot someone. And…a woman with a gun will always have it taken from her, and be killed for resisting. Women are just as strong as any man, except…women are perpetual victims needing society to protect and care for them, just like so many other victim groups who need white liberals to make a life for them.

        • I actually have encountered that argument and I’ve actually seen it come only from old fudd men who really don’t think women (or anyone for that matter) can carry. Very few younger/liberal types dare say women can’t/shouldn’t. None I’ve met anyway, and I actually unfortunately spend a decent amount of time around the other side. In dealing with them, I think you’re correct, using facts or logic is pointless. I use emotional arguments and even whip out the SEXIST card on liberal men if they disagree. Generally while I can’t convince them to be pro2A/pro gun I can tell I’m getting them to question their own narrative and weaken them down to the “but we must DO something!?!?”.

          • “I actually have encountered that argument and I’ve actually seen it come only from old fudd men who really don’t think women (or anyone for that matter) can carry.”

            Maybe the Soccer Mom/Club sets aren’t the same all over. The anti-gun guys I run into reject the idea of any defense when confronted by attackers/potential attackers. The women think Kung Fu will stop attackers cold, but watching them, they are encumbered by bags, phones, fashion clothing, always focused on what’s in front of them. The women find armed self-defense useless because they can be overpowered and a gun taken. The don’t think they have the strength to hang onto a pistol. The whole Kung Fu thing is social status, not a real skill.

        • I’ll also add that a quite effective argument tactic is to continually ask “why”? Or “how”? It forces them to to have to think critically, and with allot of people, regardless of their stance wether right or left, aren’t prepared for that one, at least not to their face.

          • “I’ll also add that a quite effective argument tactic is to continually ask “why”? Or “how”? ”

            Asked “Why?”, once, at a posh dinner outing. The answer that shut down the whole conversation was, “Guns are only made for killing, and a person who would want to kill another person shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun.”

        • I get what your saying, but what I’m saying is we can counter that liberal logic with pure emotion as you were also stating. And of course hurling out racist sexist ect… using their own tactics against them. Remember how they argue. You can continually yell sexist repeatedly if need be. But everytime they bring up some fanciful counter point as to why women shouldn’t be armed, you call them sexist and point out why it’s sexist. And the funny part is, they are the ones infact being sexist.

          • “And the funny part is, they are the ones infact being sexist.”

            Indeed.

            Does it matter? The lefties are the ones who say you can’t be this or that if you are part of a protected group because you don’t have power, else you wouldn’t be in a protected group. It is all word games to them, and they are very good at it.

        • “Asked “Why?”, once, at a posh dinner outing. The answer that shut down the whole conversation was, “Guns are only made for killing, and a person who would want to kill another person shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun.”

          I was given that “answer” once, and I countered it with:
          I own several guns that I bought new, so I am the only owner of them. They have had thousands of rounds put through them, and not once were they ever fired at a person, much less killed someone. Your idea that guns are only used to kill people is, therefor, provably false. And there are over a hundred million gun owners just like me who each prove the same thing.

          • “Your idea that guns are only used to kill people is, therefor, provably false…”

            Understand you thought, here. However, the original response to my “Why?” did not include “only” as a qualifier. People like to dodge around the idea of firearms as tools for killing by declaring that they never use firearms to kill anything. That sort of reasoning is along the lines of, “I use my screwdriver only to open paint cans, not to turn screws.” Essentially, the claim of peaceful, alternative use of firearms changes the base nature of the tool. But, even that was not the core of the diner’s retort.

            The core of the diner’s retort about guns being made for killing was related to the intent of the owner (self-defense), and the fact that few, if any, people buy guns to scare off attackers without intent to use the gun to harm the attacker. The context of the discussion described in the comment was self-defense, not firearms in general. In the context of self-defense, one would be hard pressed to justify introduction of alternative uses of the firearm as a means of self-defense.

            In short, the diner’s proclamation was that anyone contemplating self-defense must consider that using the gun to kill is a high probability, and anyone willing to kill another person is the sort of person who should never possess a gun.

    • Isn’t this what the PR firm, to which the NRA paid millions of dollars, was supposed to figure out?

      • “Isn’t this what the PR firm, to which the NRA paid millions of dollars, was supposed to figure out?”

        Don’t know. We need more than a few law firms taking on gun restrictions. We need more than one organization (a single point of failure) lobbying . We need more than an array of independent voices.

  9. UBC cannot work, fr too many opportunities for failure. The only means to address any of those opportunities for failure is a nationwide gun owner and gun serial number registration. Which is a massive “HELL NO!!!” even among most Democrats.

    We will solve Faster Than Light Travel to the next Galaxy before we figure out how to make UBC work without turning tens of millions of law abiding Americans into instant criminals.

  10. First off back round checks are unConstitutional,also unConstitutional is preventing a person from doing with Their Property as They Wish,be that lending,loaning of a arm.

    • Whether UBC are or are not constitutional is of no consequence. The left cares nothing about the constitution, they want to overturn it.

      “Unconstitutional” is not a magic wand that will ward off the evil.

      I agree with Sam I Am that POG need to organize and get a consistent, constant message out there to educate everyone.

      The problem with that idea is conservatives are busy earning their living, raising their children, going to church, living their lives. They don’t have the time nor inclination to spend time and money on something that is a Constitutional Right that everyone should recognize. Going to a rally is a waste of time, the media is not going to report it straight, they will twist everything and report that gun owners attacked the left wing AntiFa protesters outside. By the way, I have been to POG rallys and we didn’t start anything, ever, and the LEO know it.

      I don’t know what will work but I have seen enough of the left wing “stuff” going on for several decades to know we are losing.

      Be Prepared !

  11. “Currently, any private seller can get a background check on any private transaction.”

    Wait, how does that work? I am good with the article but unsure what this means. I thought there isn’t currently a way for a private seller to get a background check.

    • anybody can get a background check?….yes that’s true…but doing it through an FFl will cost you…and using the local sheriff is a hassle…what’s needed is a system that allows you to do it yourself…with no records kept…..

  12. The seller takes the firearm to an FFL licensed dealer and the buyer fills out a 4473, pays for the background check and waits for the results (anywhere from pretty much instant to a couple of weeks depending on the laws applicable where the transfer is taking place).

    • Okay so that is the process for legal interstate sales where a gun is shipped from seller to an FFL selected by the buyer to receive the gun and handle the 4473 or other required legal burdens.

      Okay so where is the rest of it? What happens within a state? No shipping involved?

      Why would a seller take the gun to an FFL?
      Why would the buyer chose to buy from that seller?
      What prevents millions of private gun sales from never going thru an FFL?

      How would anyone know a crime had taken place if the seller and buyer simply did not care to go to an FFL?

      The massive holes in the idea would require plugging. That leads to the only logical recourse.
      1. License all gun owners so law enforcement knows who to check up on.
      2. Register every gun by serial number. Any gun encountered by law enforcement can then be checked that it is with the person it is registered to.
      3. Periodic and random audits to determine if any guns are no longer in the hands of those people on record as having them.
      4. A scale of increasingly harsh punishment for transgressions against the above, regardless if any crime beyond paperwork is discovered.

      To have these Universal Background Checks the unintended consequences must be considered. The only way for them to work is to place severe restrictions and law enforcement over-watch upon tens of millions, perhaps over a 100,000,000 Americans who are not otherwise violating any law.

      Dumb idea, filled with holes that can only be filled with scofflaws, massive abuse, blood and death.

      So, no on that one.

      On the other hand if somebody could come up with a plan for voluntary use of the NICS with careful attention to unintended consequences, I’d be willing to listen.

      • “On the other hand if somebody could come up with a plan for voluntary use of the NICS with careful attention to unintended consequences, I’d be willing to listen.”

        There’s a simple solution – If you are a prohibited person found to be in possession of a firearm, you need to explain yourself in front of a judge.

        About background checks that come back denied for being a prohibited person, march them in front of a judge who will tell them if they are ever in front of a judge for the same charge again, they can expect a mandatory prison sentence. That covers those who may have simply forgotten a years-back conviction made them a prohibited person.

        The law-abiding and their guns are left alone. No need for gun registration if a prohibited person found in possesion can expect time in prison…

        • There was a law put in place here in Mass. many years ago. If in you are caught with a hand gun and not licensed to carry automatic 1 year in jail. I have yat to hear that a judge imposed that sentence on anyone.

      • And offer a UBC discount to gangbangers to ensure that they comply. Sure it will work and the streets will soon fill with unicorns and the Dodo will become unextinct and the forests will be full of Aurochs again and we will live happily ever after.

  13. If 250,000 vets can be added to NCIS why can’t the real lunatics under psychiatric care be added or is the AACLU really that dumb. ( the first A stands for anti)

  14. Cripes. The same thing over and over again. Get rid of the street violence, then talk about”Background checks”. Street violence will never stop unless people who live in the neighborhoods where the violence occurs will stand up and identify those individuals responsible; however, you know that probably will never happen because those individuals are in fear of their safety. Can’t blame people for that.

    As in all Quality Assurance programs, eliminate the Root Cause, (street violence) then background checks will be a breeze, i.e., if an individual is honest enough and has nothing to worry about the information being offered is true and accurate. That’s another problem, trying to fill out any type of firearm application request with the least possible information one can give. Then people cry, “why I am I waiting too long for my approval” or “why is my application I being rejected”?? Boohoo.
    Grow up people.

    • “Get rid of the street violence, then talk about”Background checks” ”

      Street violence is of no interest to the anti-gunners. Else, we would see protests every Monday decrying the carnage among gangs and inner-city criminals in every major urban area. Street crime does not affect the anti-gunners. They are all nice people who go to nice places where other nice people gather. It is the normal looking crazed gun owner who also frequents “nice places”, and are just a hair away from snapping and taking out a whole mall full of nice people.

      The anti-gunners don’t want UBCs because they somehow magically prevent criminals and crazies from getting guns. The anti-gunners want to discourage the “normals” who will buy a gun, then go out into polite society and launch a shooting spree. If the UBC stops one gun purchase, for one moment, on a single day, it is good for society (never mind that a denied person can illegally purchase a gun). Besides, failure of UBCs to be effective is a feature/benefit – proves more must be done to prevent guns from being acquired. Better yet, proves that only complete confiscation and banning of firearms will make society safe. UBCs are easier to create than a constitutional amendment repealing the Second Amendment.

      • “The anti-gunners don’t want UBCs because they somehow magically prevent criminals and crazies from getting guns. The anti-gunners want to discourage the “normals” who will buy a gun,”

        This….

  16. I try to do my part as a pro-gun advocate, I also live in a gun friendly state… Pennsylvania. I have brought several co-workers to the party. None had any experience with firearms. One by one was brought to the range as a guest, taught proper gun handling and the fun of exercising thier rights. All now have their own firearm, with many starting a collection. Many are now licensed to carry. We all get together monthly at an indoor range to have fun, show off new things, and bring others into our sport. Everyone helps to teach those with less experience. Of course current political topics come up, but pro 2nd amendment is top of the list. The point that I’m trying to make is… we, as a community of responsible gun owners, need to spread the message. Increase our numbers, voices, votes..

    • “gun friendly”?….compared to new jersey, maybe…truth be told PA is in the middle of the pack…[a handgun registry that isn’t a registry…yeah, right!]…and leaning more to the left every day….

  17. 6) Even if they could document every legal gun transaction in this country, this will amount to a huge subsidy to the narco-terrorists. They can’t even keep out fentynal off the streets.

  18. A so called “right”, the exercise of which is based on the gererousity of the authorities, is not a right. By the way, in case readers hadn’t notice, the same authorities from whom permission must be sought, are the same mob that screw up proper enforcement of the law. Does that not strike you as strange? Additionally, why pray tell, aren’t those individuals who commit armed crime punished as they should be? I find that question interesting, do you?

  20. Uh, how about it’s MUCH MORE SIMPLE, like: ANY AND ALL BACKGROUND CHECKS, along with ALL GUN CONTROL Laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL as they violate the 2nd Amendment’s PROHIBITION vs GOVT infringing on those rights. ANY IMPEDIMENT to access to owning guns, is literally THE definition of infringement.

    SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, means SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

    STOP with the piecemeal nonsense: go on the offensive. Unless GOA, SAF & the newly formed FPC are NOT moving to abolish ATF, fully repeal ALL gun control ‘laws’ as unconstitutional, PERIOD, whyTF do they even bother??

      • “Now, how to sell this idea to the masses?”

        Was recently at dinner with the commander, at a local bbq joint. two tables over were a coupla youngsters bearing more metal in their faces that you find on a lightning rod. the two were discussing politics, and the difference between a state law that was a hot topic, and the federal law covering the same matter. finally, one of them ended that conversation with, “well, i don’t understand why we have states, anyway. aren’t we, like, just one country?”

  21. I am finally getting emails telling me about replies made to articles I made a comment on.
    Thank you very much.

  22. Open up the NICS database to employers performing pre-employment screenings. Have employers pay, oh, $50 for each name run through the database for an employment background check to fund expansion of the servers.

    As soon as you make liberals live by this database, you’ll see them back off their goofy ideas.

    Remember Alinsky’s Rules: Make the enemy live up to their own rules.

  23. Thinking the the government doesn’t already know who bought what gun which used a background check is just wishful thinking. It’s all in the wording, they probably have a list of background checks that they have approved or not approved which equals out to the same thing. In my opinion doing a 80% is the only real way to stay off the books.

Comments are closed.