SAF Staff Helped Write Background Check Bill

[fightingquaker13]

C&R  are FFLs  under the law.

BUT, no 4473 required if you have a C@R licence. I don't, HAZ does. Say we both order a moisin from an out of state dealer today. I have to go though an FFL. He doesn't, they just ship to his house. That saves him 50 bucks. Now, if this law passes, does he have to ship through a dealer and fill out the 4473 and pay their fee? And if so, what's the point of the C@R?

[1Buckshot]

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

 
 
 

Sorry FBG, That was not directed at you.

[fatbaldguy]

Sorry FBG, That was not directed at you.

No blood, no foul.  I'm a big boy and can take my medicine. 

[tombogan03884]

BUT, no 4473 required if you have a C@R licence. I don't, HAZ does. Say we both order a moisin from an out of state dealer today. I have to go though an FFL. He doesn't, they just ship to his house. That saves him 50 bucks. Now, if this law passes, does he have to ship through a dealer and fill out the 4473 and pay their fee? And if so, what's the point of the C@R?

No, he IS the FFL, if they make it so he does then it would have to apply to every supplier/dealer transaction.

[JLawson]

As I see it, there are two different tracks one can follow when discussing issues such as the UBC.  One track is the theoretical or philosophical where you can talk about things like the Founding Fathers' original intent.  The other track is the practical... the pragmatic.  On this second track, your discussions are constrained by what is possible or probable given the entirety of current social, legal, and political conditions.  We become frustrated - often angry - when we're on track one and we try to carry on a conversation with someone on track two.  In this situation, our conversation is not supported by a common frame of reference and will seldom rise above the level of friendly bickering.

In the case of the Manchin-Toomey amendment, a pragmatist would recognize that NICS isn't going anywhere.  There may be better systems out there but NICS is here to stay for the foreseeable future - too much has been invested in the legal, technical, and procedural infrastructure for NICS to be replaced or abandoned.  But NICS can be improved.  The States can upload more criminal and mental health records.  The restraint against a centralized registry and related penalites can be codified more forcefully.  The interstate transport of firearms and ammunition can be made more traveler-friendly.  And the process for rights restoration can be strengthened and simplified.

Is the M/T amendment the right legislative vehicle to make these improvements?  We will each decide that for ourselves.  Politicians love to wax philosophical when standing before the cameras.  Their careers and their votes, however, are very pragmatic things.

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

No more compromise at all .
There are over 20,000 earlier compromises on the books that have not done a bit of good.
After that many failures how dumb do you have to be to think going back the other way is a "bad" idea ?
No matter what regulation, rule change, or modification they make it will have 4  guaranteed results .
It will be more of a PITA.
It will cost you more.
It will not have any effect.
and criminals will ignore it.

[Solus]

No more compromise at all .
There are over 20,000 earlier compromises on the books that have not done a bit of good.
After that many failures how dumb do you have to be to think going back the other way is a "bad" idea ?
No matter what regulation, rule change, or modification they make it will have 4  guaranteed results .
It will be more of a PITA.
It will cost you more.
It will not have any effect.
and criminals will ignore it.

You are right about the last two, concerning BIDS, but it will be less of a PITA and will be cheaper.

All it requires is the existing prohibited data base enabled for  initial downloading and downloading of updates to FFLs.

That database will reside on the FFL system and be accessed by a 3rd party program...or an Office application.

[tombogan03884]

You are right about the last two, concerning BIDS, but it will be less of a PITA and will be cheaper.

All it requires is the existing prohibited data base enabled for  initial downloading and downloading of updates to FFLs.

That database will reside on the FFL system and be accessed by a 3rd party program...or an Office application.

Are you making money off this ?
Or are you just OK with infringements that are convenient ?

[kmitch200]

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.

No sh!t Captain Obvious. 
The people who happen to be irate IS EVERYONE COMMENTING ON THIS THREAD. We all know it's BS, dumb and an infringment that shouldn't exist and hopefully it never will. That doesn't mean we shouldn't read it to see what it says. 

Now shhh...the adults are talking.

[Frosty]

There is only one reason for the government or law enforcement to know who has what guns.  It is so they can take them when it has been decided that the American Citizens are no longer allowed to have a particular gun and to prevent them from refusing to comply with the forced ban.
"Shall not be infringed" prohibits government from placing any restrictions whatsoever upon the citizens to use guns and ammunition in self-defense. And self-defense in this instance includes but is not limited to resistance to a tyrannical government.
The U.S. government has slowly and gradually infringed on the right of the people to keep and bear arms -- the very thing the Second Amendment prohibits with strong language. That slow trickle has now become a raging torrent that threatens the gun rights of the people as to render them practically useless.
There are hundreds of laws regarding firearms that directly infringe on the original intent, spirit, and purpose of the Second Amendment. These laws are illegal and are therefore null and void. The Framers knew in the future the possibility that laws would be passed by tyrannical representatives that ignored Constitutional prohibitions.
American Citizens are under no obligation to obey unconstitutional laws. The question now is, how many more infringements will the American Citizens/patriots allow before a tipping point is reached?

 From the  R E P O R T OF  THE SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  THE  CONSTITUTION OF  THE COMMITTEE  ON  THE  JUDICIARY UNITED  STATES  SENATE,  NINETY-SEVENTH  CONGRESS
ORRIN G. HATCH, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution.
If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying—that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976—establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime
These gun laws you are trying to enact are unconstitutional!