National Gun Forum banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Ancient Gaseous Emanation
Joined
·
55,659 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Tom Knighton
September 3, 2019


I haven’t made a secret of the fact that I don’t trust our president when it comes to guns. It’s nothing personal, I just don’t see a lifelong New Yorker understanding how important gun rights are to many in this great country. He’s expressed more willingness to “compromise” on guns than I’m comfortable with as well.

However, he also hasn’t embraced the anti-gun arguments like I feared he might.

Yet after Odessa, I had concerns. Would President Trump more fully embrace gun control?

Well, I have my answer.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP said Sunday the package of gun-related proposals that he and Congress are considering won’t be affected by the mass shooting this past weekend in Texas.

‘We’re doing a package,’ he told reporters. ‘….That’s irrespective of what happened yesterday in Texas.’ He was referring to a mass shooting in which a gunman killed at least seven people and wounded 22 around Odessa. This followed other recent mass shootings in August, including one in El Paso, Texas and another in Dayton, Ohio.

‘For the most part, as strong as you make your background checks, they would not have stopped any of it,’ Trump said.​

So, the president appears to be still considering at least some degree of gun control based on what happened in El Paso and Dayton, but he’s not shifting more to the left on gun control than he already is.

While I’d rather see the president refuse to budge at all on guns, that’s not where he is at the moment. Instead, he’s looking to pass a bit, probably enough to quell concerns during the general election but not much more than that.

For better or worse, that’s the best we can hope for right now.

Now, I can hear someone out there talking about how the president is playing 4D-chess right now and all that jazz, but I’m not interested in hearing it. He’s playing 4D-chess with our right to keep and bear arms. He’s proposing measures like red flag laws that mean someone can claim I’m a threat and then the police will take my weapons away and I will have to prove I’m not a threat in order to get them back. He’s been back and forth on things like universal background checks. Hell, he’s already managed more gun control than the Obama administration with the bump stock ban alone.

I don’t want to hear about 4D-chess.

That said, I do understand political realities. While I oppose any gun control, I also understand that politicians also feel pressured to do things they wouldn’t ordinarily do or support. I get that.

But don’t sell me that this is part of some “grand design.”

There’s been little reason to take the president’s word that he’s a gun-rights supporter from the get-go. He was just better than the alternative. He’s still better than what the alternative would have been. Trump’s proposals aren’t a drop in the bucket compared to what we’d be dealing with if Hillary had won, and we all know it.

All of that said, the fact that he’s not latching onto Odessa to justify still more gun control is something of a relief. It means that we’re not going to see assault weapon bans, for one thing. It also reduces the chance of seeing universal background checks in his gun control package.

While we don’t know quite what form that package will take just yet, it’ll still be far better than it could have been.




https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2019/09/03/trump-announces-no-intention-change-stance-guns/
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
Good article.

My bet is that he'll do nothing but talk a little and trail off to something else. That's what politicians do.

He does need a win, though. I just don't think gun legislation is a game worth the reward.
 

·
Grand Imperial Poobah
Joined
·
24,900 Posts
If Trump stabs us in the back on gun control, it will be after the 2020 election. He NEEDS our votes to get re-elected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wag and Stamps6

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,745 Posts
If Trump stabs us in the back on gun control, it will be after the 2020 election. He NEEDS our votes to get re-elected.
Yes, he does! But he better not do what all politicians do, tell us what we want to hear then do the opposite!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Viper123

·
"You talkin to me?"
Joined
·
4,299 Posts
Yes, he does! But he better not do what all politicians do, tell us what we want to hear then do the opposite!
agreed.... My question is what do we do about it except live with it if he does it after he's re-elected? Move to Canada? Venezuela? :popcorn2:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,541 Posts
Would UBC, if done right, be all that bad? With the recent events, something that may have made a difference may be heading our way. If there was a UBC and it was instant, no record of the deal and no other questions other than is the purchaser legally aloud to purchase, such a bad thing? You have to forgive me because I’m from NJ and we’ve been dealing with a similar system here since 1968. I submitted myself to a criminal background check. A mental health background check. A local police background check and have submitted 3 references that are not family to receive my FID. with that FID I can purchase long guns at Will with just the NICS check. I have no problem with this. If all purchases have to go through the dealer then that’s bad because the dealer charges for that service.
Hand guns are a hassle. You have to file for a permit to purchase that takes from 10-45 days and is good for 1 gun. That permit expires in 90 days. That really sucks.
A UBC, if done right may actually may be somewhat effective but at least it’s doing something. The biggest problem with any of these measures is that they won’t stop there. They ALWAYS want more, more and more as evidenced by California. When your faced with the recent shootings, we look bad and the politicians have to look responsive.
Dont jump on my ass unless you have a better idea. None of us like this and we’re not going to walk away unscathed. We’re up against not just the anti gun people but some of the pro-gun people and most of the uneducated neutral people. The odds are not in our favor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,368 Posts
Stop fussing about Trump, he might do this, he might do that. Just vote for the squaw and then you will know what will happen to your guns.
 

·
AZHerper
Joined
·
4,712 Posts
Remember, his oldest boys have been hunting and shooting for many years. Eric has also hunted big game internationally and both have been vocal supporters of the Second Amendment. I don't believe that he'll end his support for either the Second or his boys. He may support some kind of background check in an attempt to ameliorate backlash from libs.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
Would UBC, if done right, be all that bad? With the recent events, something that may have made a difference may be heading our way. If there was a UBC and it was instant, no record of the deal and no other questions other than is the purchaser legally aloud to purchase, such a bad thing? You have to forgive me because I’m from NJ and we’ve been dealing with a similar system here since 1968. I submitted myself to a criminal background check. A mental health background check. A local police background check and have submitted 3 references that are not family to receive my FID. with that FID I can purchase long guns at Will with just the NICS check. I have no problem with this. If all purchases have to go through the dealer then that’s bad because the dealer charges for that service.
Hand guns are a hassle. You have to file for a permit to purchase that takes from 10-45 days and is good for 1 gun. That permit expires in 90 days. That really sucks.
A UBC, if done right may actually may be somewhat effective but at least it’s doing something. The biggest problem with any of these measures is that they won’t stop there. They ALWAYS want more, more and more as evidenced by California. When your faced with the recent shootings, we look bad and the politicians have to look responsive.
Dont jump on my ass unless you have a better idea. None of us like this and we’re not going to walk away unscathed. We’re up against not just the anti gun people but some of the pro-gun people and most of the uneducated neutral people. The odds are not in our favor.
I'm not jumping you. In fact, I posted essentially the same narrative a while back.

To review: I've had the following background checks:

- US Navy, 3 of them. Entry, and access to the following material: Confidential, Secret, Top-Secret

- Several gun purchases

- License to Carry (fingerprints, DD214, background check)

My wife went through those as well. We don't have a problem with background checks. I am not opposed to UBC.

People can speculate and surround the issue with fear of the future that "they" are nibbling away at the 2A, but I'm not listening to that noise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
629 Posts
Would UBC, if done right, be all that bad? With the recent events, something that may have made a difference may be heading our way. If there was a UBC and it was instant, no record of the deal and no other questions other than is the purchaser legally aloud to purchase, such a bad thing? You have to forgive me because I’m from NJ and we’ve been dealing with a similar system here since 1968. I submitted myself to a criminal background check. A mental health background check. A local police background check and have submitted 3 references that are not family to receive my FID. with that FID I can purchase long guns at Will with just the NICS check. I have no problem with this. If all purchases have to go through the dealer then that’s bad because the dealer charges for that service.
Hand guns are a hassle. You have to file for a permit to purchase that takes from 10-45 days and is good for 1 gun. That permit expires in 90 days. That really sucks.
A UBC, if done right may actually may be somewhat effective but at least it’s doing something. The biggest problem with any of these measures is that they won’t stop there. They ALWAYS want more, more and more as evidenced by California. When your faced with the recent shootings, we look bad and the politicians have to look responsive.
Dont jump on my ass unless you have a better idea. None of us like this and we’re not going to walk away unscathed. We’re up against not just the anti gun people but some of the pro-gun people and most of the uneducated neutral people. The odds are not in our favor.
UBC done right? UBC, in fact background checks in any case, is wrong. UBC done right reminds me of "robbery gone wrong". In both cases, they started wrong and there's no doing either right.

You want us to provide a better idea if we're going to challenge your suggestion? I have plenty of those and may include one in this reply but the big problem with your requirement is that it's not clear what you want a better idea about. Just what are you trying to solve with UBC?

As soon as we knew about the shooter in Odessa I knew there would be a problem. It is the first I know of shooting of this type where the gun was purchased in an otherwise private sale - but... breaking news. Wall Street Journal claims the gun was manufactured illegally and illegally sold to the shooter. I don't have a subscription so can't read the article but there will be other reports with more details soon enough.

So, potentially, there are still zero shootings like this where a gun was bought legally without a background check so UBC would have changed nothing at all.

Much worse than the leftists who want to take our guns are gun owners who want to compromise them away.

So here's my better plan: No new gun laws. Good plan, huh? It will actually work better than will any new gun law.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,541 Posts
While I agree with your “ no new gun laws” approach and beliefs, the public, and there fore the politicians have to do something to stop these attacks. It won’t work but they’ll have to show the voters that they are doing something. I didn’t say it was right or constitutional but the voters are screaming for them to act. The moms buying bullet resistant backpacks and teachers expelling students for NRA tee shirts are very loud. Policy is made up by politicians and politicians are reacting to the masses. You can say we are not governed by mob rule but that’s not entirely true or we wouldn’t have any gun laws to worry about. Hold up the constitution and stand behind it all you want but if nothing is done about these shooters, we will loose much more than a UBC fight. Yes it’s chipping away and no one wants to give an inch. The constitution allows for limits on rights. We are only a breath away form being able to only have a hunting gun and no semi auto or pump guns at all. Open your eyes. States have the right to limit your rights and do it all the time. Thank God for DJT’s SCOTUS picks. Kankles would have us empty handed by now. If the Odessa shooter had a “ ghost gun” you can kiss those good by as some states have already banned them or made it nearly impossible to build one? It’s always the legal guys who pay for the criminals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,908 Posts
Would UBC, if done right, be all that bad? With the recent events, something that may have made a difference may be heading our way. If there was a UBC and it was instant, no record of the deal and no other questions other than is the purchaser legally aloud to purchase, such a bad thing? You have to forgive me because I’m from NJ and we’ve been dealing with a similar system here since 1968. I submitted myself to a criminal background check. A mental health background check. A local police background check and have submitted 3 references that are not family to receive my FID. with that FID I can purchase long guns at Will with just the NICS check. I have no problem with this. If all purchases have to go through the dealer then that’s bad because the dealer charges for that service.
Hand guns are a hassle. You have to file for a permit to purchase that takes from 10-45 days and is good for 1 gun. That permit expires in 90 days. That really sucks.
A UBC, if done right may actually may be somewhat effective but at least it’s doing something. The biggest problem with any of these measures is that they won’t stop there. They ALWAYS want more, more and more as evidenced by California. When your faced with the recent shootings, we look bad and the politicians have to look responsive.
Dont jump on my ass unless you have a better idea. None of us like this and we’re not going to walk away unscathed. We’re up against not just the anti gun people but some of the pro-gun people and most of the uneducated neutral people. The odds are not in our favor.


I live in NY where we have UBC's for every gun sale. It's a feel good law that is unenforceable. The only way this law could be enforced is with total gun registration and even then it couldn't be enforced until after a gun is sold and found at a crime or in possession of someone who is not permitted to own it. I'm guessing your handguns are on a permit like here in NY. if you sold one would anyone know about it? they would come looking for you for sure when the guy who you sold it to used it in a crime(if they recovered it) but it didn't stop the crime, it just gives another person to prosecute after the crime happened. Back to total gun registration, how would that be accomplished? Honor system? House to house searches and documentation? We've already seen the gun confiscation in Australia that not everyone turned in their guns and they begged people to turn them in years later. More recently in New Zealand only a small percentage of people turned in their guns. Even here in the U.S. in some states that required people to register their "assault rifles" only a small percentage did. Total gun registration would be a joke, some people would do it. Some people would partially do it, some people wouldn't do it and certainly anyone with an illegal gun would never do it. The scariest part is what would the govt do with the info on the guns that were registered. How many would they decided to ban and then they know where they are. Again, UBC's won't do anything to stop crime......
 
  • Like
Reactions: Popeye

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,541 Posts
I’m saying a UBC could be done right. No record of the gun or it’s type needs to be asked. It’s the buyer not the gun. No record if the deal even went through. Just simply , is Tommy Thompson a permitted purchaser. Not if it’s a handgun or a semiautomatic sporting gun or a BB gun. The buyer could be issued a car like a credit card with a number to call for the free background check. You call and give the number on the card and in seconds just like your credit card, yea or nea. There would need to be a appeals process that would have to be completed in say 10 days or the sale goes through. Something like that wouldn’t be impossible to implement and would separate the bad guys from the good guys.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,908 Posts
That is the way UBC are done now, it's the same as buying a new gun and doing the NICS. The only exceptions here are handguns because they are permitted(here in NY) so once you sell you have to remove it from your permit and they add it to theirs. Here is another thing. if the law goes into effect tomorrow and you sell a gun next week and the guy uses it in a crime, they find it and they will track it back to you through the normal means. How do they prove when you sold the gun, was it before the UBC law went into effect or after? Your word against the guy who used it in a crime? Maybe you say it was stolen and didn't realize it. So many ways to create reasonable doubt. And again, how does this stop crime? they know it won't and it's just a stepping stone towards total gun registration and we all know what that historically leads too. Speeding is a crime(more of an offense). They have police patrolling our roads, some people still speed and others don't. Some get caught, some don't. Imagine if they removed all the police from our roads,would more people speed or less because now it's unenforceable. If a law can't be enforced it's useless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
629 Posts
While I agree with your “ no new gun laws” approach and beliefs, the public, and there fore the politicians have to do something to stop these attacks. It won’t work but they’ll have to show the voters that they are doing something. I didn’t say it was right or constitutional but the voters are screaming for them to act. The moms buying bullet resistant backpacks and teachers expelling students for NRA tee shirts are very loud. Policy is made up by politicians and politicians are reacting to the masses. You can say we are not governed by mob rule but that’s not entirely true or we wouldn’t have any gun laws to worry about. Hold up the constitution and stand behind it all you want but if nothing is done about these shooters, we will loose much more than a UBC fight. Yes it’s chipping away and no one wants to give an inch. The constitution allows for limits on rights. We are only a breath away form being able to only have a hunting gun and no semi auto or pump guns at all. Open your eyes. States have the right to limit your rights and do it all the time. Thank God for DJT’s SCOTUS picks. Kankles would have us empty handed by now. If the Odessa shooter had a “ ghost gun” you can kiss those good by as some states have already banned them or made it nearly impossible to build one? It’s always the legal guys who pay for the criminals.
I'm willing to consider your ideas; please expand on the following ideas you've presented:
  1. Please tell us how UBC will stop the shootings.
  2. Please tell us how what it is that the politicians can do, or should do, to stop the attacks.
  3. Please quote where in the Constitution that it allows for limits on rights.

If you can document and justify those three statements, as a strict constitutionalist, I will have no choice but to be on your side so it's up to you to defend what you've said.

When you suggest that they do something even if it's not constitutional then, to quote a little girl on a dishsoap commercial, what does the Constitution do? If it doesn't limit government then what does limit them? If you support them doing a thing that is unconstitutional, then just what thing is it that you would object to? Apparently nothing at all.

I've said it many times, rhetorically, but I'd like to hear your response to this: If the government was created by the Constitution then by what authority would they act outside of the Constitution other than the tyranny enforced by their guns? If you accept that they have the authority to do one thing, no matter how insignificant, outside of the Constitution then you must accept that they can do any thing outside of the Constitution. Do you accept that they can do anything they want and the Constitution be damned? Your words suggest so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
629 Posts
It's not exactly how it's done today. It is, however, how they want you to believe it is done today.

There is a record made in the Bound Book of the FFL of every sale made. Since they are already requiring gun registration on sale of guns by FFLs there is no reason to believe they would have an exception for sales outside of the FFL. In fact, here's an example from Colorado, virtually all states that have UBC (probably all but I haven't checked all the laws) require recording the same information as the FFL would for a sale the FFL was making - which means model,serial, buyer, etc.

UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS (HB 13-1229)Background Check Requirement
Under the new law, before any person who is not a licensed gun dealer transfers possession of a firearm, he or she must arrange for a licensed dealer to obtain the required background check. In obtaining the background check, the dealer must follow all procedures that it would follow were it transferring the firearm in a retail transaction, including recording the transfer, retaining the records, and complying with all state and federal laws. The dealer must provide a copy of the background check results and the Bureau's approval or disapproval to the transferor and intended transferee, and may charge a fee of up to $10.
A prospective transferee may not accept possession of the firearm until after the transferor has obtained the Bureau's approval, nor may he or she knowingly provide false information to the transferor or licensed gun dealer for the purpose of acquiring a firearm. Bureau approval of a firearm transaction is valid for 30 calendar days. A person who transfers a firearm in violation of the law may be held jointly and severally liable for any civil damages caused by the transferee's subsequent use of the firearm.
In addition, the current NICs law requires that there be an appeal mechanism for denials but the FBI has a terrible record of virtually never processing appeals. For years the Congress (both Republican and Democrat) refused to fund the appeals process but I can't find anything current to suggest that is still the case. Now it simply appears to be intentional policy on the part of Christopher Wray's FBI.

It seems that the only way to appeal is in the courts with a lawyer and then the FBI grants the reversal before trial so they can never be ordered to start processing appeals: https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/06/11/fbi-sued-failure-process-nics-appeals/

So, there's no way to do UBC right and it's never been done right - because there's no way to do UBC right.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
Remember, his oldest boys have been hunting and shooting for many years. Eric has also hunted big game internationally and both have been vocal supporters of the Second Amendment. I don't believe that he'll end his support for either the Second or his boys. He may support some kind of background check in an attempt to ameliorate backlash from libs.
Those kids go to exotic places (America doesn't have any big game) where the guns are rented and locals use pots and pans to corner an animal so the kids get a photo-op. One of my bosses had lots of trophies in his office and that's how he got them.

The 2A is not an issue in a foreign country where there's an "Animal Kingdom," for shooting fish in a barrel.

Trump's kids aren't going to be affected by any gun control measures in the United States.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,745 Posts
agreed.... My question is what do we do about it except live with it if he does it after he's re-elected? Move to Canada? Venezuela? :popcorn2:
You have a very good point! After reading your comment,it left me thinking about it, moving is out of the question, so what other alternative do we, gun people, will have?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,745 Posts
On the UBC question, I think that the great majority of the citizens who summit to a UBC check and pass it, WILL NOT become a mass shooter, why? Simply because we are law abiding citizens, and because of it, we are not afraid of the check. The criminals and mental deficient people will NOT summit to a UBC because they know they will fail it, so, What is the point on doing the check in the first place when the people who it is intended to identify will not summit to it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigNastyCowboy

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
On the UBC question, I think that the great majority of the citizens who summit to a UBC check and pass it, WILL NOT become a mass shooter, why? Simply because we are law abiding citizens, and because of it, we are not afraid of the check. The criminals and mental deficient people will NOT summit to a UBC because they know they will fail it, so, What is the point on doing the check in the first place when the people who it is intended to identify will not summit to it?
You have the answer in your narrative:

The criminals and mental deficient people will NOT summit to a UBC because they know they will fail it ...
Failing a UBC and failing to apply for a UBC accomplish the same thing.

Possessing a gun without a UBC would be a crime.

I'm all for it. If I have to go through it, the Constitution forbids favouring one group over another, then everyone should go through it.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top