SAF Staff Helped Write Background Check Bill

[fatbaldguy]

Amazing how the light turns on  when someone actually reads the text before making a comment on it. It's the people on the far side of arguments (Right or Left) that refuse to See and Hear before they make a statements.

At least I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong.

[twyacht]

Another layer to our Regulation Nation,.... sadly, there will probably be another "mass" shooting in the future, another "crack" some loon fell through, and this will all happen again with ANOTHER demand to add ANOTHER layer to our Regulation Nation.

Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, ad nauseum......

Eventually, given the current propaganda wing of the left, MSM, how much "layering" on the 2nd Amendment are you willing to give up or have added on. These are politicians and lobbyists with their own agenda.

(And yes I read the sell-out bill, and watched the video).

The anti's won't stop after this "compromise" legislation goes through. (still hoping it doesn't). Schumer, Feinstein, Bloomberg, et, al,...aren't going to get the warm fuzzies if it goes through.

They will just wait until the next opportunity....

[tombogan03884]

Nobody said it has to work as intended.

SEC. 103. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this title, or any amendment made by this title, shall be construed to-
(1) expand in any way the enforcement authority or jurisdiction of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; or
(2) allow the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a Federal firearms registry.

To quote Napoleon: "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

I'm not sure...

"(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply if-
"(A) the transfer is made after a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (s), and upon taking possession of the firearm, the licensee-
"(i) complies with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the firearm from the licensee's business inventory to the unlicensed transferee, except that when processing a transfer under this chapter the licensee may accept in lieu of conducting a background check a valid permit issued within the previous 5 years by a State, or a political subdivision of a State, that allows the transferee to possess, acquire, or carry a firearm, if the law of the State, or political subdivision of a State, that issued the permit requires that such permit is issued only after an authorized government official has verified that the information available to such official does not indicate that possession of a firearm by the unlicensed transferee would be in violation of Federal, State, or local law;

What the hell, it's only a little more infringement .
There are only 20,000 other laws either not working or not being enforced, what's one more ?
You don't need to pass a background check to run the freaking country ,but some of you don't mind one to pass your private property on to your children ?
What part of "Shall not be infringed" are you having trouble understanding ?
The frogs ignore another click.

[Jrlobo]

For those of you looking for "reasonable" "compromise", see what it gets you?

[Solus]

It can't be enforced with out registration .
How can they charge you with not going through a background check unless they know who last owned the gun ?
Which means it has to have been registered.

Not sure what you are thinking.

If you are on the No Gun list, you are charged with Illegal Possession of a Firearm.  It just doesn't matter what you did or did not do about getting a background check.

The goal is to allow sellers to know who is on the proscribed list.

[Sponsor]

[Solus]

Too bad they stuck with the NICS system and didn't take advantage of the benefits of the BIDS system. 

There would be no chance of registration, no delays, no central shutdowns...

[fightingquaker13]

At least I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong.

You're not wrong. It is a POS. It mandates background checks for any sale or tranfer from published source, eg newspaber or the Net. Now that's no change from interstate sales. But for intrastate sales? It mean's you have to go through a dealer. And what about C@R transfers, where no check is required if you're sending it to someone with a C@R licence?

[kmitch200]

What the hell, it's only a little more infringement .
There are only 20,000 other laws either not working or not being enforced, what's one more ?
You don't need to pass a background check to run the freaking country ,but some of you don't mind one to pass your private property on to your children ?
What part of "Shall not be infringed" are you having trouble understanding ?
The frogs ignore another click.

Tom, are you off your meds??? Get a refill!!

I've read through this entire thread twice.
Nobody has said it should pass. Nobody has said they support it. Nobody has said "call your senators and urge them to vote yes."
Nobody is ignoring anything - we just read the text and are discussing it.

Maybe you should read it too then you can add intelligent comments to the discussion rather than "but some of you don't mind one to pass your private property on to your children ?", which is addressed in:
SEC. 122. FIREARMS TRANSFERS.
"(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply if-

As FQ noted, "It's a POS."  
I'm sure we all agree on that, that's why nobody on this board is saying it's a GOOD thing.
Adults discussing something doesn't mean they support it. 

[tombogan03884]

Tom, are you off your meds??? Get a refill!!

I've read through this entire thread twice.
Nobody has said it should pass. Nobody has said they support it. Nobody has said "call your senators and urge them to vote yes."
Nobody is ignoring anything - we just read the text and are discussing it.

Maybe you should read it too then you can add intelligent comments to the discussion rather than "but some of you don't mind one to pass your private property on to your children ?", which is addressed in:
SEC. 122. FIREARMS TRANSFERS.
"(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply if-

As FQ noted, "It's a POS."  
I'm sure we all agree on that, that's why nobody on this board is saying it's a GOOD thing.
Adults discussing something doesn't mean they support it. 

If you are not irate about ANY further gun law, you don't deserve any rights.
The only Constitutionally valid gun law is one that says any law abiding citizen can buy carry and possess anything he (or she ) can afford .
As originally written the citizens "right to keep and bear arms" included the latest field cannon and naval guns with out any regulation, or background check at all.
So it must be you who are off your meds.
The ones that keep you from bleating sheepishly.

[TAB]

C&R  are FFLs  under the law.