Another Alternative to Back ground checks at gun shows Etc.

snake284snake284 Senior MemberPosts: 21,930 Senior Member
OK, we all have a problem with background checks at gun shows and on a personal level of firearm exchange (Non Retail). I have thought about this and I have a suggestion to throw out to everyone for your evaluation to see what kinds of problems this idea would generate.

OK Say we did the background checks up front. What if we, all gun owners and potential gun owners underwent an FBI background check? What if they give us a Photo ID card saying we can buy firearms because da..da..da... Would that be any different than getting the check done on the scene when buying a gun? Just show em your card and buy the gun. That would prevent anyone knowing when and if you bought, inherited, or were gifted a gun. No 4473 required if you're not dealing with a Licensed FFL dealer.

Another issue, I don't have to have a background check because I have a Texas CCW which serves as a background check because before I got my CCW I had to have a background check. Now my CCW is good until 2021. Not sure if I need another background check for the next CCW renewal or not. But that ID card that says I'm eligible to buy fire arms should be valid as long as my CCW is. This card wouldn't have to be redundant with a CCW. If you have a CCW you shouldn't need a Background check ID card, your CCW is your ID card.

Lots of questions and I know some purist may have objection to this proposal because there's always somebody that does. But this is really no different than it already is for us if we have a CCW or we buy a gun from the CMP or other government entity. I myself would be willing to have a card or an ID that says we are eligible to buy firearms. Actually, I already do, it's called my CCW. Is this too much akin to registration? To me it's no more restrictive than the system already is.

This background check would notify a salesman or saleslady or anyone involved in the sale or transfer of a firearm if someone is mentally competent to own a firearm just like they do now, only this would cover gun shows, inheritance, gifts, etc. without having to do a special check which would flag the purchase. This way your right and your freedom to sell or give away a firearm as a non dealer wouldn't be hindered or flagged.

This biggie now is that everyone wants to insure that no crazies or religiously fanatic people have guns legally. We all know that most of these mass shooters are usually either religiously motivated or crazy. But for any reason I think any sane gun owner would agree, that one way or another, second amendment not withstanding, that if someone's crazy or a religious fanatic, OR a habitual criminal, or a violator of family violence issue, he doesn't need to be having a firearm.

If someone wants to procure a firearm that doesn't meet the criteria make him do it the hard way. not under the guise of doing it legally. It's already like that and if a scumbag wants a firearm all these laws aren't going to stop him which shows the true futility in any gun law. This admittedly is a form of appeasement like any other gun law. It appeases those who are anal about guns and think a law will prevent a tragedy. That's the only restriction that I can think of that's a valid restriction for the 2A.
Daddy, what's an enabler?
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
«1

Replies

  • john9001john9001 Senior Member Posts: 668 Senior Member
    Once upon a time all a person needed to buy a gun was money.
  • shotgunshooter3shotgunshooter3 Senior Member Posts: 5,427 Senior Member
    While the typical "catch all" argument against this in pro-gun circles is "What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?"; at some point something like this will need to be seriously discussed.

    Honestly, it's not the worst idea on the planet and might make paperwork for gun stores a lot easier. However, on the same token, I could see the government attempting to make it restrictive by assigning a very high fee or intentionally delaying the approval process. There is no easy answer here, and like it or not as large scale shootings continue to occur the public opinion will be more easily swayed into the anti-gun side of the argument.

    That's really just a long winded way of saying I have no clue.
    - I am a rifleman with a poorly chosen screen name. -
    "It's far easier to start out learning to be precise and then speeding up, than it is having never "mastered" the weapon, and trying to be precise." - Dan C
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,788 Senior Member
    Not sure either. I think something like this is on the right track in terms of appeasment. Not sure how to deal with revocation of the card/registration though. I guess maybe an online check that just put in the number and it confirms that it is valid? Im sure something could be worked out

    Honestly if it actually made it easier/less paperwork, waiting on bg check I'd be down. That said would probably have to be legislated at the fed level and their constitutional authority in this area is questionable at best. Could involve a coalition of states maybe?
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • ArmoredmanArmoredman Member Posts: 351 Member
    "Mother may I"?
    I don't want to have to get government permission to exercise a core, fundamental Constitutional right. I especially don't wan the government to schedule me for regular background checks under the assumption I might, someday want to buy a firearm, establishing that they control all access to a lawful product. That would be similar to having to submit to regular breathalyzers tests to determine if your a drunk and unable to operate a motor vehicle, or take a literacy test to "properly" vote. Oh, wait, we tried that one already...
    I realize the point of the argument is, but no, we do not have to meekly sit back and let them roll slowly over our rights. A background check presupposes one is a criminal and unable to legally complete the transaction, until you affirmatively prove your innocence.
    Perhaps my attitude is simply because I am a born/bred desert rat from Arizona, voted five years running by G&A as the best state for firearms freedom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,930 Senior Member
    While the typical "catch all" argument against this in pro-gun circles is "What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?"; at some point something like this will need to be seriously discussed.

    Honestly, it's not the worst idea on the planet and might make paperwork for gun stores a lot easier. However, on the same token, I could see the government attempting to make it restrictive by assigning a very high fee or intentionally delaying the approval process. There is no easy answer here, and like it or not as large scale shootings continue to occur the public opinion will be more easily swayed into the anti-gun side of the argument.

    That's really just a long winded way of saying I have no clue.

    Yeah, but your have no clue is very close to my clue, which is also NONE, LOL!

    Like I said, this is all appeasement to the anal and antis or in other words it's a way of making those that believe you can legislate this crap a little more comfortable thinking we can stop those that shouldn't have guns from obtaining them. Some people just think there should be a law for every scenario.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,726 Senior Member
    My main objection is that new gun laws are always just distractions from actually trying to solve the problems that cause such events. No left-wing politician wants an honest discussion that allows only factual material to be considered. Mass shooting/suicide events are much too complicated for any solution that can be crafted by our current crop of opportunistic politicians.

    Every compromise with the shrieking carnival hawkers that come out of the woodwork for new gun laws is a small erosion of constitution, and there have been too many, already.
  • SkolnickSkolnick Member Posts: 47 Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    OK, we all have a problem with background checks at gun shows and on a personal level of firearm exchange (Non Retail). I have thought about this and I have a suggestion to throw out to everyone for your evaluation to see what kinds of problems this idea would generate.

    We have that in Illinois, it is called the Firearm Owners Identification Card, or FOID. You need it to buy firearms or ammunition; you need it to posses firearms or ammunition. The program is so "good" that it exempts Illinois from some provision of the Brady Bill.

    That being said, there are lots of examples of people being convicted of felonies, drug offenses, and/or domestic violence and not having their FOID card revoked.

    See this article: https://www.wbez.org/shows/wbez-news/illinois-outrageously-insane-gun-license-loophole/a80f8eb6-af01-4697-8e9b-32253d3b25e6
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,930 Senior Member
    Armoredman wrote: »
    "Mother may I"?
    I don't want to have to get government permission to exercise a core, fundamental Constitutional right. I especially don't wan the government to schedule me for regular background checks under the assumption I might, someday want to buy a firearm, establishing that they control all access to a lawful product. That would be similar to having to submit to regular breathalyzers tests to determine if your a drunk and unable to operate a motor vehicle, or take a literacy test to "properly" vote. Oh, wait, we tried that one already...
    I realize the point of the argument is, but no, we do not have to meekly sit back and let them roll slowly over our rights. A background check presupposes one is a criminal and unable to legally complete the transaction, until you affirmatively prove your innocence.
    Perhaps my attitude is simply because I am a born/bred desert rat from Arizona, voted five years running by G&A as the best state for firearms freedom.

    The problem with the 2A all that isn't addressed in it. Those that wrote it and put it in the Constitution, the dumb language not withstanding (Why the hell did they put that crap about a Militia in it?), never fathomed people behaving like they do now.

    Our 2A rights are on the verge of being challenged as they have never been before. When you add up the antis and the people in the middle who perpetually don't make their minds up one way or the other, you find we lose. We're outnumbered. To sit back and say I will not is the fastest way there is to give your rights up. Nobody said it's going to be easy and there are no guarantees that the political party in power won't stomp on your rights. It takes each and every one of us being vigilant to insure our rights aren't trampled upon. Having said all that, I didn't mean everyone would be indiscriminately subjected to a back ground check. Only those who wish to purchase firearms legally would be. Do you carry? If so, if you're doing it legally, you've already been subjected to a back ground check (unless you live in a constitutional carry state, which I feel will come under challenge soon). So that part has already been taken care of. To a legal gun buyer this is already being done. But under the present law the back ground check is carried out at purchase. Therefore to do this at a gun show it would no doubt require an FFL and a 4473. Then there's a paper trail to the gun and to the buyer. The argument from the antis is there's no safety net such as a back ground check to insure the purchaser is sane and not a criminal. But if you have a document, a card or whatever, with your positive ID on it and saying that you are of sound mind and have no criminal record and have not been convicted of family violence, then you are clear to buy a firearm then this should negate the need to do all that at purchase, plus it should placate the worries that someone who is unfit to own a gun of getting one, legally that is.

    In answer to the darkened part of your post, you already have to. This would only let you do that before the fact where it would not interfere with purchases at a gun show or gifts and purchases between neighbors or relatives.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,648 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    The problem with the 2A all that isn't addressed in it. Those that wrote it and put it in the Constitution, the dumb language not withstanding (Why the hell did they put that crap about a Militia in it?), never fathomed people behaving like they do now.

    Our 2A rights are on the verge of being challenged as they have never been before. When you add up the antis and the people in the middle who perpetually don't make their minds up one way or the other, you find we lose. We're outnumbered. To sit back and say I will not is the fastest way there is to give your rights up. Nobody said it's going to be easy and there are no guarantees that the political party in power won't stomp on your rights. It takes each and every one of us being vigilant to insure our rights aren't trampled upon. Having said all that, I didn't mean everyone would be indiscriminately subjected to a back ground check. Only those who wish to purchase firearms legally would be. Do you carry? If so, if you're doing it legally, you've already been subjected to a back ground check (unless you live in a constitutional carry state, which I feel will come under challenge soon). So that part has already been taken care of. To a legal gun buyer this is already being done. But under the present law the back ground check is carried out at purchase. Therefore to do this at a gun show it would no doubt require a FFL and a 4473. Then there's a paper trail to the gun and to the buyer. The argument from the antis is there's no safety net such as a back ground check to insure the purchaser is sane and not a criminal. But if you have a document, a card or whatever, with your positive ID on it and saying that you are of sound mind and have no criminal record and have not been convicted of family violence, then you are clear to buy a firearm then this should negate the need to do all that at purchase, plus it should placate the worries that someone who is unfit to own a gun of getting one, legally that is.

    In answer to the darkened part of your post, you already have to. This would only let you do that before the fact where it would not interfere with purchases at a gun show or gifts and purchases between neighbors or relatives.
    The statement concerning militia is obvious when taken in context. It demonstrates the need for a non-standing army for defense of the nation. A well regulated (trained) Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. All able bodied male citizens and those declaring intent to become citizens age 17 through 45 are the unorganized militia of the United States of America. Training in weapons and tactics makes them more effective if needed.
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,788 Senior Member
    Skolnick wrote: »
    We have that in Illinois, it is called the Firearm Owners Identification Card, or FOID. You need it to buy firearms or ammunition; you need it to posses firearms or ammunition. The program is so "good" that it exempts Illinois from some provision of the Brady Bill.

    That being said, there are lots of examples of people being convicted of felonies, drug offenses, and/or domestic violence and not having their FOID card revoked.

    See this article: https://www.wbez.org/shows/wbez-news/illinois-outrageously-insane-gun-license-loophole/a80f8eb6-af01-4697-8e9b-32253d3b25e6
    Good point about IL. It also seems to have not done jack to reduce gun violence. Relative to other states.

    That said there is something appealing about only having to go through the paperwork once or once every so many years vs. every time I want to buy a gun. Filling out the form and waiting round for the BG check is my least favorite part of the process. It also could reduce a lot of extra work and liability on the part of ffls. Just a thought. Not saying it would definitely be on net positive, but I can see positive aspects of it. Especially if the law was written with the help of 2a groups like the NRA.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • shotgunshooter3shotgunshooter3 Senior Member Posts: 5,427 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    The problem with the 2A all that isn't addressed in it.

    This, and also SCOTUS has directly stated that although the 2A does protect an individual's right to possess a firearm, it can also be subjected to additional regulation. Heller v DC, I think (can't remember, too lazy to Google).
    - I am a rifleman with a poorly chosen screen name. -
    "It's far easier to start out learning to be precise and then speeding up, than it is having never "mastered" the weapon, and trying to be precise." - Dan C
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 23,987 Senior Member
    Concealed carry permit does this ---Snake.
    A Veteran is someone that served in the Military, it does not matter where they served.
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 15,212 Senior Member
    So let's say we get enhanced background checks,mental health checks and get issued "good guy" cards ....all those things that will shut the anti-gun crowd up.....then let's say a guy with a "good guy" card with his legally procured firearm goes off his nut one day and starts shooting folks indiscriminately....

    No matter what preventative measures they take to keeps guns out of the hands of people who have no business with them....bad stuff is still going to happen.

    Look, let's get real, the Feinsteins of the world and their ilk aren't going to be happy until our firearms are piled in the city square being run over by a D-8Cat.....all this other stuff is just a lead-in to this...their logical, ultimate conclusion.
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,195 Senior Member
    One other thing to consider: a registration card/system is going to add another layer of bureaucracy, with its own attendant need for funding and continued existence. And it's only as good as the information fed into it - when lapses happen (and they will) it'll be used as evidence to "do more."

    Sent from my SM-S907VL using Tapatalk
    Overkill is underrated.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,930 Senior Member
    sgtrock21 wrote: »
    The statement concerning militia is obvious when taken in context. It demonstrates the need for a non-standing army for defense of the nation. A well regulated (trained) Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. All able bodied male citizens and those declaring intent to become citizens age 17 through 45 are the unorganized militia of the United States of America. Training in weapons and tactics makes them more effective if needed.

    That makes sense to me, and apparently you.But unfortunately it is not real clear in this day and time to everyone. I still wish they would have left out this decorative language.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,930 Senior Member
    This, and also SCOTUS has directly stated that although the 2A does protect an individual's right to possess a firearm, it can also be subjected to additional regulation. Heller v DC, I think (can't remember, too lazy to Google).

    Yes, true.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 19,018 Senior Member
    One other thing to consider: a registration card/system is going to add another layer of bureaucracy, with its own attendant need for funding and continued existence. And it's only as good as the information fed into it - when lapses happen (and they will) it'll be used as evidence to "do more."
    Yep, and just consider this, a very small percentage of gun owners want NFA weapons/devices (compared to ALL firearms owners) and the gov can't even handle that without it taking 10+ months.

    Now then, imagine if EVERY gun owner in the country had to be processed for their "good guy card"

    I can see waiting times eventually getting DOWN to 3-5 years

    FYI, according to the suppressor association, the actual time it takes the BATF to do 1 NFA form/background check is <15 minutes. The rest of the wait is just the time it takes for them to get to the box your paperwork was filed in after they removed the payment/payment information.


    Edited to add:

    I'll PASS :nono:
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 15,212 Senior Member
    knitepoet wrote: »

    Now then, imagine if EVERY gun owner in the country had to be processed for their "good guy card"

    I can see waiting times eventually getting DOWN to 3-5 years

    AND.... what's to say that, during that waiting period, the guy develops a drinking problem, goes off his nut, commits domestic violence, is now unable to legally acquire a firearm and then lo and behold,his "good guy card" shows up in the mail....and he goes and commits some high profile public mayhem

    And in about 10 minutes some rocket scientist figures out "the system is flawed" (which anyone with an ounce of sense knew when the thing was enacted) and here we go again....
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 19,018 Senior Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »

    And in about 10 minutes some rocket scientist figures out "the system is flawed" (which anyone with an ounce of sense knew when the thing was enacted) and here we go again....
    :win:
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,628 Senior Member
    Whatever alternative you devise for background checks at gun shows, especially private sales, there are two absolute conditions - it must be "shall-issue" without delay, to anyone lawfully entitled to firearms ownership, and it must be free of any fee or charge. Attaching a cost to the exercise of any Constitutional right is the same as levying a poll tax for voting.
  • ArmoredmanArmoredman Member Posts: 351 Member
    snake284 wrote:
    Do you carry? If so, if you're doing it legally, you've already been subjected to a back ground check (unless you live in a constitutional carry state, which I feel will come under challenge soon).

    I began carrying legally in the state of Arizona when I was 16, which was lawful unencumbered open carry, legal since the states founding in 1911. It was unremarked upon and normal, no permit, license, waiting period, FOID, none of that. We got our first CCW law in 1994 and continuously improved it until it became Constitutional Carry in 2010. We are going on 8 years as a Constitutional Carry state and I don't see any challenges coming down the pike here locally, just the usual ones that we deal with, the Calirefugees and Chicago expats in Tucson and Phoenix. I didn't have to pass my first background check until I went into the military. I didn't pass a background check for a firearm until the Brady Act became law, and that was only at gun shops. AZ law specifically prohibits background checks for lawful private transfers of property, BTW, only required of an FFL, and registration is also specifically forbidden, to any political entity lower than the state. So, no, your statement is not universally true, and lawful open carry happens daily in the several states who recognize the right to do so. As Constitutional Carry has expanded, not contracted, even under a 100% Democrat controlled US government, I don't see this pendulum swinging abruptly back the other way right this minute. Of course, I stay active and keep people informed of leftist activities, bother my elected officials regularly, and vote in every election. Therefore, as long as we can keep working together and not rolling over, we can win, as we have demonstrated over the years.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,930 Senior Member
    Armoredman wrote: »
    I began carrying legally in the state of Arizona when I was 16, which was lawful unencumbered open carry, legal since the states founding in 1911. It was unremarked upon and normal, no permit, license, waiting period, FOID, none of that. We got our first CCW law in 1994 and continuously improved it until it became Constitutional Carry in 2010. We are going on 8 years as a Constitutional Carry state and I don't see any challenges coming down the pike here locally, just the usual ones that we deal with, the Calirefugees and Chicago expats in Tucson and Phoenix. I didn't have to pass my first background check until I went into the military. I didn't pass a background check for a firearm until the Brady Act became law, and that was only at gun shops. AZ law specifically prohibits background checks for lawful private transfers of property, BTW, only required of an FFL, and registration is also specifically forbidden, to any political entity lower than the state. So, no, your statement is not universally true, and lawful open carry happens daily in the several states who recognize the right to do so. As Constitutional Carry has expanded, not contracted, even under a 100% Democrat controlled US government, I don't see this pendulum swinging abruptly back the other way right this minute. Of course, I stay active and keep people informed of leftist activities, bother my elected officials regularly, and vote in every election. Therefore, as long as we can keep working together and not rolling over, we can win, as we have demonstrated over the years.

    I admire your attitude and am similar in that. BUT, I think if we have many more of these type mass shootings public opinion will change unless we are proactive. The thing is, you already have background checks and they want FEDERAL Law to extend them to gun shows and at personal level. It doesn't make much difference what attitude is in Arizona. We're talking federal law and you having legislators like John McCain I doubt on the Federal Level Arizona will stand hard against any federal law. What I suggested is already being done with the exception of back ground checks at gun shows or between two individuals. That is coming federally, watch and see. Yeah it sucks. But what I suggested is not giving in to the Antis, but rather keeping them at bay and out of our personal business.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,842 Senior Member
    The latest nutcase passed BGC's because of government failure. I can't see how more government is the answer.

    Of course, I don't have an answer either.
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,930 Senior Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    AND.... what's to say that, during that waiting period, the guy develops a drinking problem, goes off his nut, commits domestic violence, is now unable to legally acquire a firearm and then lo and behold,his "good guy card" shows up in the mail....and he goes and commits some high profile public mayhem

    And in about 10 minutes some rocket scientist figures out "the system is flawed" (which anyone with an ounce of sense knew when the thing was enacted) and here we go again....

    And what's to say a meteorite collides with earth tonight and all life as we know it is extinguished. It could happen. But I'm not living my life around such a scenario.

    All I'm suggesting is a system that is already in place to keep more intrusion by government out of the picture. Also, I would wager a large majority of this forum already has a carry permit. And when we go to buy a gun we get around the BGC, because??? We already had it when we got our carry permit. Nobody threw a fit when we got our carry permits. We wanted a carry permit and had nothing to hide by submitting to a BGC. While we still have a majority in both legislative bodies and a gun friendly federal government why not put something in place that would shut down this incessant cry for back ground checks at Gun Shows and for private sales?
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 15,212 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    And what's to say a meteorite collides with earth tonight and all life as we know it is extinguished. It could happen. But I'm not living my life around such a scenario.

    All I'm suggesting is a system that is already in place to keep more intrusion by government out of the picture. Also, I would wager a large majority of this forum already has a carry permit. And when we go to buy a gun we get around the BGC, because??? We already had it when we got our carry permit. Nobody threw a fit when we got our carry permits. We wanted a carry permit and had nothing to hide by submitting to a BGC. While we still have a majority in both legislative bodies and a gun friendly federal government why not put something in place that would shut down this incessant cry for back ground checks at Gun Shows and for private sales?

    You do realize that people with concealed carry permits still do stupid and even criminal stuff....right? Admittedly it's a small percentage,.very small...but it still happens... it's hard enough to keep track of this stuff on a state level....a federal system would be a freaking nightmare
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,930 Senior Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    You do realize that people with concealed carry permits still do stupid and even criminal stuff....right? Admittedly it's a small percentage,.very small...but it still happens... it's hard enough to keep track of this stuff on a state level....a federal system would be a freaking nightmare

    I'm not saying it's a cureall for idiots. I do realize that there isn't one. Non of this stuff will stop a purp hell bent on shooting a place up. This suggestion is only to pacify the dummies that think there's a law to cure every ill. And of course there isn't. But the leftest or antis or whatever ya wanna call them say they want back ground checks at gun show sales and for personal sales. That's why I say give them one up front. Keep the Form 4473 out of the gun shows.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • timctimc Senior Member Posts: 6,684 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    Yeah, but your have no clue is very close to my clue, which is also NONE, LOL!

    Like I said, this is all appeasement to the anal and antis or in other words it's a way of making those that believe you can legislate this crap a little more comfortable thinking we can stop those that shouldn't have guns from obtaining them. Some people just think there should be a law for every scenario.

    The only problem with your appeasement logic is the libs will neve be satisfied. Anything you give up will be great we have that now let’s go for something else. Their goal is to steadily chip away until it’s all gone.
    timc - formerly known as timc on the last G&A forum and timc on the G&A forum before that and the G&A forum before that.....
    AKA: Former Founding Member
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,930 Senior Member
    timc wrote: »
    The only problem with your appeasement logic is the libs will neve be satisfied. Anything you give up will be great we have that now let’s go for something else. Their goal is to steadily chip away until it’s all gone.

    I just can't see this as appeasement, I see it as getting ahead of the game, that in keeping gun show sales and non retail gifting and sales on a personal level, separate from regular retail sales, sales in retail establshments, LGSs, Wally World, Academy, Dicks, all the usual. Because the way things stand right now, if we have another shooting like the one in Southerland Springs, I really believe something will be done and it will be hard. I believe if this happens what we will see come out of it will be something where we lose a lot and we will never get back.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 19,018 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    I just can't see this as appeasement,
    You're about the only one here that doesn't
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,930 Senior Member
    knitepoet wrote: »
    You're about the only one here that doesn't

    So be it, but I don't.Appeasement would be saying "OK give us a back ground check before we buy anything at a gun show and let me see that 4473 so I can fill it out. That would be giving into the left. But having undergone a BGC in advance, which unless you live in a costitutional carry state, if you carry, you've already had a BGC, you hand your card over and say ]my back grou"Here's my BGC card, and since you're not a retail dealer I don't need to fill out that 4473. Now can I have my gun?
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.