Universal Background Checks for firearms

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

Some of us are okay with UBCs with or without any further assurances but...

...would you find acceptable a law requiring UBCs provided a constitutional amendment barring confiscation without due process and appeal is part of the deal?

If you select pass, please explain or propose an alternative.

5 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	I would be against expanding background checks to any degree for any reason
	0 (0%)
	I favor UBCs but would reject them if an amendment barring confiscation without due process is part of the deal
	5 (100%)
	I would accept this compromise
	0 (0%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[stone space]

1. No. Better to repeal the 2nd Amendment. (nt)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. As usual...

...obfuscation and a lack of cooperation with something that could lead to progress.

[stone space]

3. Giving Gun Worshipers another Amendment to further Sanctify their Religion is not an step forward.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. Neither is your course toward cultural purity. n/t

[GGJohn]

13. Wow!

You hit just about every gun control talking point.
I'm proud of you, you're learning.

[Duckhunter935]

20. He does good

Drop the second and it is up to the states.

[Eleanors38]

29. "Religion?" I don't think you'd like my holy water.

[stone space]

36. I'm an atheist. I don't want your religion forced on me. (nt)

[Eleanors38]

37. Oh, no force necessary. At my age, it flows freely!

[stone space]

38. I'm not a gun worshiper. (nt)

[Duckhunter935]

41. Cool, either am I

[GGJohn]

45. Cool,

we have something in common.

[Lurks Often]

40. You spend a lot time trying to force your views on the rest of us

[Duckhunter935]

42. Almost like

Some type of religion

[DonP]

5. By all means, get off the couch and get started

Or are you just talk and no real action?

Petitions need to be drafted and circulated. As a leader in the gun control movement, who better to get the ball rolling.

Start with all your professor buddies at UT.

You'll need 2/3s of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the states approval.

Figure at least, oh maybe three to five years worth of work to get things started.

Or are you assuming someone else will do the grunt work? Or that there's some short cut to amending the constitution if you have the "high moral ground"?

I'm thinking ... all you'll do is talk it to death, then run away when someone questions what you are doing in the real world.

[stone space]

7. It's the OP asking for a new Amendment. Suggest you take it up with him.

He seems to want help with his Amendment.

[DonP]

8. So, as usual, sit on your hands instead of standing up for what you believe in

You are the one that just said "repeal the second amendment", right?

But you're too lazy, too busy, too frightened, too confused, too something to actually do anything to start the process? Some people might think that's hypocritical, after all your blather about it.

But I bet if someone else did the work you'd be proud to sign for the repeal, right? You just don't want to get your hands dirty and you probably have to take the garbage out, walk the dog, grade a quiz or do something else more important.

Yeah, heck, let somebody else do the hard work, then jump on the bandwagon and take credit for the idea.

Maybe somebody with actual principles and strongly held beliefs will finally do it instead of somebody with just a sweaty keyboard.

[Duckhunter935]

21. He sure likes that public funding

Not enough conviction to resign if state law allows CCW in his classroom. He would just call the armed police on that lawful activity.

[Eleanors38]

30. The word you're searching for: "Indolent." nt

[DonP]

43. Indolent, lazy, cheap, ineffectual, they all work. n/t

[GGJohn]

14. You're the one who want's to repeal the 2A,

Last edited Mon Oct 12, 2015, 10:33 PM - Edit history (1)

we're just helping you to understand what all is involved in repealing an enumerated right.

[Lurks Often]

10. What fantasy land do you live where that is remotely possible?

2/3 of both the Senate and the House and 3/4 of the states would have to approve of the repeal.

Your other option is a Constitutional Convention and who knows how that will turn out.

[Duckhunter935]

22. He says he lives in the real world

Different dimension?

[Lurks Often]

24. Just because he says it, certainly doesn't make it true.

[Eleanors38]

31. Where the unicorn farts rainbows over Michgan Avenue!

[GGJohn]

12. Well then, you should get right on it.

Of course you realize that the American public isn't on your side, (or you don't realize it).

Let's see, you would need to convince the Congress to call for a Constitutional Convention, then convince 2/3rd's of the Congress to vote for a repeal or to amend the 2A, then, if by some miracle, you did manage to get that, then it would be presented to the states for ratification, of which you will need 3/4th's to ratify it.
Do you understand what I'm saying here?
It would take only 13 states to deep six any change to the BoR.
Think you've got the votes?

Here are a list of 13 states who would vote no:

Arizona (My state)
Alabama
Colorado
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Montana
Nevada
New Hampshire
Oregon

There are many, many more that would vote no.
Hey, but if that's the way you roll, good luck.

[Duckhunter935]

23. Yes add Oklahoma

[beevul]

25. Finally. One of those 'second amendment extremists' I've heard so much about...

Finally. One of those 'second amendment extremists' I've heard so much about, from the 'reasonable' crowd.

[stone space]

34. Bugs you, huh? (nt)

[GGJohn]

46. Not in the least,

it's really quite humorous.

[beemer27]

6. All I can give you is a big MAYBE.

Your idea has much merit, and would probably be acceptable to many firearms owners, IF it had some provision forcing the authorities to have an up-to-date data base of bad guys, and forced them to return a binding answer in an hour or less. We have all seen examples of public officials taking forever for an answer, or "losing" applications, or not being available, or etc. You have seen officials pull these stunts in the past, and if they do not like the law will abuse their authority to hamper and impede this process as much as they can.
I have seen many reasonable suggestions for firearms laws, but have been reluctant to speak up in favor of them. Any agreement by a "gun nut" will be taken and run with to extreme limits, and most of what we say will be twisted in some manner.
Your idea may be a good starting point for agreement between the pro and anti gun sides.
I can not vote at this time because of the lack of what I spoke of, but will watch this thread with great interest.
Thank you for floating the idea.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. You're welcome and thanks for the thoughtful reply

[petronius]

11. No, because I don't think that structure would do any good

If you don't define the criteria for confiscation, then all the due process and appeals won't matter if laws can be changed to make the confiscation legal. (That said, I would like an amendment restricting and controlling seizure and confiscations in general--asset forfeiture and eminent domain and the the like.)

I think what you are going for would be a law/amendment specifying that any firearms currently legal at the passage of the UBC law will remain legal permanently. That I would support, although I think it would make more sense attached to registration (perhaps you're expecting that in the context of UBCs?) rather than UBCs themselves. UBCs without record or registration don't seem to raise a confiscation risk...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

15. The criteria would be being found guilty of crime...

...serious enough to have your guns confiscated, a violent felony for example.

I am entirely against registration for either firearms or their owners.

[Kang Colby]

16. I am against UBCs without real compromise.

Last edited Wed Oct 14, 2015, 11:48 AM - Edit history (1)

I posted this earlier today, but I will reshare with a slight addition. UBCs are our golden bargaining chip, and it would be foolish to give it away without making real progress with respect to the right to keep and bear arms. Keep in mind, we were able to pass the PLCAA, so all of the items below are politically feasible in exchange for UBCs.

That's why I think it makes sense to fight UBCs tooth and nail for the next few years. If the decision is ever made to go along with UBCs it will truly be a compromise and we needn't give away the bargaining chip without something in return.

A) Repeal of the Hughes amendment
B) Authorize handgun purchases from FFLs across state lines
C) National Concealed Carry reciprocity with a federal option, background check based on NICS
D) Strengthening FOPA, enhanced legal protections for firearm owners
E) Grant funding for high school state athletic associations for shooting sports
F) Repeal of 4473 record keeping requirements.
G) Public audit of NICS program
H) Establishment of an FFL program for individuals to purchase firearms directly. It would be like an FFL 03, but could be used for non-C&R.
I) Legal protection from the ATF for NFA trusts. (The ATF has been threatening to phase these out for years, we need to stop that effort.)
J) Repeal of ammo restrictions in LEOPA
K) Repeal of 922r and all import restrictions on civilian firearms and components
L) Additional funding for the CMP
M) CMP handgun sales
N) Grant program for true firearm safety organizations and efforts
O) Reduce NICS checks maximum processing time to 24 hours
P) Funding to "fix NICS", as supported by groups such as the NSSF.
Q) Removal of SBRs/SBSs/handguns with vertical grips and suppressors from NFA requirements
R) Restrict the Department of State from blocking the free exchange of cad files or similar design tools for CNC machines and 3D printers associated with civilian small arms.

If we can get those line items addressed, I would be supportive of UBCs, with exemptions for relatives.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

17. Sounds great but one question

Why did you skip "E"?

[DonP]

19. "E" is just too inflamatory for gun control people. It makes them crazy.

Last time somebody proposed "E" four people were banned from DU and a mule somewhere in Montana died.

Better just to leave it unsaid for now. (At least until we complete dismantling the public college system.)

[beevul]

26. Its because 'E' has three barrels...

Don't want to trigger them with gun porn now, do you?

[Eleanors38]

32. Sounds like my experience with describing Chicago gun laws as Jim (large, raucous black bird).

[Kang Colby]

47. Edited. See Don P's post for an explanation.

I didn't want to push the envelope with that, but changed my mind

Or it was just a typo.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

50. good work n/t

[edgineered]

18. Concur with petronius and kang colby,

to wit, distrust of authorities to circumvent due process and loss of stature at bargaining table.

eta: for example, someone not unlike some of the malicious posters to this group could easily report that organized gun owners plan to demonstrate or gather at a public place at such a time and place and such activity is threatening to them and is within x number of feet from y, a safe zone for example. Another case could be that a threat was received, real or not, and for public safety all weapons within a given area are to be accounted or worse until expiration of a given time (that time would then be challenged), etc, etc.

Off to work now..

[Eleanors38]

27. This is a reasonable proposal for this gun owner...Controllers? Not so much.

[Kang Colby]

48. Why? They make progress on gun control, specifically background checks

and we get to recapture some of our rights. It's a win-win. I am curious why you think controllers wouldn't go for this. Most gun control activists wouldn't have any idea what 3/4s of the proposal even means.

[Eleanors38]

49. I am skeptical because much of the rhetoric here and elsewhere is characterized...

By such expressions as "first step," "just a beginning," "good start," which suggests much more militant controls & bans in the offing. I think also that proposals Not originating with gun-controllers will be resisted.

However, I support the measure you suggest, and the approach of assurances and guarantees against attacks on the 2A rights. It may be possible to break a logjam.

I use "logjam" as a convenient metaphor, but I caution (myself as well) against viewing these controversies as "Pro-gun vs Anti-gun" because societal problems which manifest themselves as "Mass shootings" are far too limited by narrow gun-ban politics, and in fact may be addressed on many fronts. In fact "mass shootings" account for only a small % of all shootings, which leaves this bigger problem unaddressed. I think many people have a difficult time even framing what it is that bothers them outside some creaky, doctrinnaire, and narrow approach such as gun bans to solve CelebroPunk murders.

[deathrind]

28. Hmmm...

As Jeb said "stuff happens" or Ben with his bullet riddled bodies are not nearly as tragic as legislating controls around the 2nd Amendment.

Enacting common sense legislation that would require 100% background checks, a license to sell firearms, waiting periods for purchases, mag caps, mandatory safety courses none of which takes away a persons "right" to "bear arms" it just makes the process to ownership take a little longer.

It is an amazing display of cognitive dissonance by propoents of the 2nd amendment that on one hand they claim "guns don't kill people, people kill people" yet they firmly believe drugs should be illegal...because apparently drugs just jump into a persons system and kills the person not because the person ingested/injected the drug. We have drug laws and heavy regulation because humans do terrifically unwise things with them an mostly just hurt themselves...not an entire class room of 8-9-10 yr olds.

We treat alcohol the same way. Yet when it comes to guns the best we can do is just shrug our shoulders and say "stuff happens". So much for American "exceptionalism". We sent people to the moon but cannot do anything (apparently) to make 2016 a year with 0 school shootings or if not 0 at least a number that is < 45...

[Eleanors38]

33. "...believe drugs should be illegal?" From The Anti-Ammosexual Handbook of Reality?

[gejohnston]

35. you do need a license to sell firearms

In fact, that has been federal law since the 1930s
https://www.atf.gov/file/61506/download

Did you know that 44K people die of drug overdoses each year? Heroin deaths have doubled over the past twenty years?

[beevul]

39. Thats the problem with unrealistic thinking...

Enacting common sense legislation that would require 100% background checks...

The federal government was never given authority over purely intrastate commerce. Perhaps at the state level.

...waiting periods for purchases...

Ever heard the phrase "a right delayed is a right denied"?

...mag caps...

Forgetting VT are we?

...none of which takes away a persons "right" to "bear arms" it just makes the process to ownership take a little longer.

That's your opinion.

It is an amazing display of cognitive dissonance by propoents of the 2nd amendment that on one hand they claim "guns don't kill people, people kill people" yet they firmly believe drugs should be illegal...because apparently drugs just jump into a persons system and kills the person not because the person ingested/injected the drug. We have drug laws and heavy regulation because humans do terrifically unwise things with them an mostly just hurt themselves...not an entire class room of 8-9-10 yr olds.

Maybe you should take that up with a second amendment proponent that actually espouses those views then? I can't think of a one of us here on DU that supports the drug war.

[beardown]

44. Before you double down on your "believe drugs should be illegal" statement...

Often times ending the war on some drugs is proposed here. Often. Not unanimous, but I'd say it's a very strong majority of the comments I've seen. Years ago, I saw a chart on the murder rate over the 1900's and two large spikes showed up. One coincided with the 18th amendment, albeit the rate was already going up before 1920, but the decline started about the time of the repeal in 1933 and the second the ramp up of the war on some drugs you see the rate climbing in the early 1970's until it's peak around the early 1990's and it's continued decline to historic lows. Putting millions of dollars of drugs on the streets provided the buying power and motivation to protect turf and the dealers were going to jail with or without gun crimes so they had nothing to lose and everything to gain by arming up to the teeth.

Social and economic equality and security, you know, the old style democratic party stuff, are often times called for by pro gun posters.

Per an amendment to prevent confiscation, dream on folks. Even if it would be approved, the govt (both repub and democratic ones) has shown little restraint in bypassing or ignoring the majority of the BOR and finding favorable judicial rulings to cut the original Bill of Rights down to the Bill of Right and that one only covers something about state voting. Tens of thousands of law abiding Americans have had their cash seized by law enforcement and then are faced with going to court and it's attendant costs and time delays to recover their cash which is generally given as a bounty, 21st century American privateers like, to the law enforcement unit that seized the cash. Over 100,000 Japanese Americans (over 60 percent American citizens) could tell you how well they were protected by the Constitution in 1942 and not only was their internment validated in 1944 by the Supreme Court, but later records proved the Census Bureau aided in the roundup with census data.

You're not paranoid if they are really out to get you or in this case the BOR.