Background checks for all firearm sales is a bad thing

[oldgun]

Many if not all here already know this but I thought I'd put it down anyway.

On it's face, most people would say, "I agree with background checks for all sales. It will prevent criminals from getting guns." Well, not only is this untrue due to straw purchases already being one of the most direct routes to guns in the hands of convicted felons, but it also creates a defacto firearm registration.

By this I mean, if I buy a gun from my local dealer he records the sale on the form 4473 and by law has to keep that record forever. If that dealer goes out of business he has to ship the 4473 forms to BATF Headquarters. As it stands right now, BATF has access to information that I bought the gun originally from the dealer, but they don't have access to information that I may have ever sold the gun. If I decide it is in my best interest not to disclose ownership of a firearm due to rogue government concerns or liability to myself from overzealous legislation, all I have to say right now is I sold the gun a long time ago whether true or not and if that firearm is hidden away well enough BATF can't prove what I told them is the truth or not.

By forcing a background check on every sale, now BATF has a trackable record of what I own or do not own and should they tell me to turn in firearms due to a ban, I can no longer say I sold it long ago to some untraceable person as that is now a crime without that sale being recorded via a background check and generation of a new form 4473. In essence, the government just created a web you can't get out of via a defacto registration scheme.

Of course anything owned prior to this sneaky recording scheme would still be safe from prying government eyes but as soon as something must be repaired by a gunsmith on an overnight stay, it will enter the roles of der Führer's list when that gunsmith must record, by law, that firearm into his bound book. Private ownership of firearms outside of the governments knowledge I would argue is within the main essence of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. The government should worry anyone could be armed when they attempt tyranny and they can't control those people because they don't know for sure who those people are.

Just my 2 cents.

[PSUWaz00]

Reality of the situation is that both sides will need to give and take...ideally we'd win and not have anything change....but that's unlikely. I personally am OK conceding universal background checks if that would mean no "bans" of any kind. But we'll see.

[bmwaudio]

i agree, this is just setting up "registration for confiscation" down the road or otherwise...... we must keep fighting, calling, writing our reps.....

[oldgun]

Reality of the situation is that both sides will need to give and take...ideally we'd win and not have anything change....but that's unlikely. I personally am OK conceding universal background checks if that would mean no "bans" of any kind. But we'll see.

I don't believe in giving them anything. I despise the idea that it's ok to compromise away my rights so evil politicians don't take more away. It's defeatist, it has been done over and over again by gunowners and it only leads to further violations down the road.

Shall not infringe.

[internet troll]

Reality of the situation is that both sides will need to give and take...ideally we'd win and not have anything change....but that's unlikely. I personally am OK conceding universal background checks if that would mean no "bans" of any kind. But we'll see.

I disagree with that line of thought. Mainly because when it come to this situation and the 2nd amendment, it's not give and take. It's more of "We will take what you let us without giving you anything". Conceding universal background checks for no bans is a perfect example. Instead of taking 100 yards, they are just taking 50. But they are still taking without giving anything. Give and take would be universal background checks for nationwide reciprocity.

Not to mention that we are always going to be fighting these battles and anything we give up now will just be that much less that they have to take away next time. Look at what they have done in New York. Not give and take, just take. This time universal background checks, next time a mag limit of 10, the time after that a mag limit of 5. The time after that an all out AW ban.

I think we need to fight for the preservation of all the rights we have now. Every right no matter how small or seemingly insignificant, is that much less that we have to lose the next time. IMO

[Big5]

How's it a bad thing to have a background check on all firearm's.

[ByAnyMeans]

The fourth post nails is perfectly. This is a defacto registration scheme. Registration eventually leads to confiscation. Sometimes they come for them quick and other times such as England is can be decades upon decades later but they eventually come for the guns.

[freesoul]

Reality of the situation is that both sides will need to give and take...ideally we'd win and not have anything change....but that's unlikely. I personally am OK conceding universal background checks if that would mean no "bans" of any kind. But we'll see.

is this an NRA press release?

[Big5]

So what you guy's are saying we should not have back ground check's on all gun's that we buy.

[GunLawyer001]

Reality of the situation is that both sides will need to give and take...ideally we'd win and not have anything change....but that's unlikely. I personally am OK conceding universal background checks if that would mean no "bans" of any kind. But we'll see.

"Give and take" does not mean that we "compromise" by giving up less than they wanted to take.

It means that they have to stomach a trade-off. We might give in to universal background checks in exchange for repeal of the MG freeze, for example. Or we accept broadening of the "prohibited persons" categories in exchange for nationwide concealed carry. THAT would be "compromise", because we give up something and we get something.

It's not as good as having gun rights recognized in all 50 states, and getting rid of absurd rules about carrying empty guns in cars, and having the Federal restoration of rights program restored and funded. But it's better than just losing slowly and uni-directionally.

I'd suggest hammering away at the lying anti- weasels by offering to impose laws that already exist. They claim that guns are unregulated, then fine. Tell them on live TV "what if we expand the prohibited persons so that it's not just "felons" who can't buy guns, and we add, oh, anyone convicted of a state misdemeanor that could be punished by more than 2 years, even if they did no jail time?" Make the sons of bitches duck and cover and backtrack. Tell them "we're willing to prohibit private sales of all guns across state lines, would you give us a repeal of the entire 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act in exchange?"