Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dems pushing for even private sellers to do Background Checks on all Gun Sales

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dems pushing for even private sellers to do Background Checks on all Gun Sales

    .
    http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/20...est=latestnews



    Wasserman Schultz Calls for Background Checks on All Gun Purchases

    by Wes Barrett | April 19, 2011

    The incoming head of the Democratic National Committee says she supports background checks for all gun purchases, and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., says she'll co-sponsor a bill in Congress to enact a new law requiring them.

    Wasserman Schultz announced her support for the measure at a Miami rally held by Mayors Against Illegal Guns. The Hill reports the Florida congresswoman, who is also set to take the helm at the DNC, told rally goers she was "outraged" by loopholes that allow buyers to purchase guns without a background check.

    "While we likely cannot end all gun violence, we certainly can do much, much better," Wasserman Schultz said. "We have laws on the books designed to keep guns out of the hands of those that should not have them. We just need to close the loopholes and improve the information available to law enforcement."

    So she plans to support the Fix Gun Checks Act Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., plans to introduce later this year. That legislation would require unlicensed gun dealers to perform background checks whenever someone buys a gun, even at gun shows. Previously, only licensed gun sellers have had to perform the checks.

    Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has introduced a companion bill in the Senate that the National Rifle Association panned as a government overreach that ignores due process."... although Sen. Schumer touts his bill primarily as one to change the background check process, it would also greatly increase the number of people who are prohibited from possessing any firearm, with little regard for every American's right to due process before being stripped of a fundamental civil right," the NRA said in a statement on its website.

    Wasserman Schultz is a close friend of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who was critically injured in a shooting spree that targeted her Congress on Your corner event in Tucson on January 8th. That mass shooting led to calls for new gun legislation.

    The gun allegedly used in the rampage was purchased legally after a background check was performed. Officials say Jared Lee Loughner, who was charged in the shootings, bought the gun legally despite a questionable mental background.



    Well, this isn't good.


    .

  • #2
    With a Republican majority in the House and the current mood among the electorate, the bill will go nowhere. Just drumming up donations to the "Brady Campaign" and every other anti-gun organization.
    "I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."

    Comment


    • #3

      Those Dems know that it will be another ineffective and unenforceable law; but it will achieve two goals:

      First, it will possibly discourage some honest citizens from purchasing a firearm or attending a gun show. Second, it will be another small step towards implementing a "list" of those who own firearms - a precursor to eventual registration. Of course, as we all know, registration may lead to confiscation - as it has elsewhere.

      I'd really like to see more emphasis on punishing criminals instead of trying to continually erode the Second Amendment rights of ordinary citizens who are not the problem in the first place.

      The comments above reflect my personal opinion as a private citizen, ordinary motorist and all-around good guy.

      The aforementioned advice should not be construed to represent any type of professional opinion, legal counsel or other type of instruction with regard to traffic laws, judicial proceedings or official agency policy.

      ------------------------------------------------

      "Ignorance on fire is hotter than knowledge on ice."

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by VA Dutch View Post

        Those Dems know that it will be another ineffective and unenforceable law; but it will achieve two goals:

        First, it will possibly discourage some honest citizens from purchasing a firearm or attending a gun show. Second, it will be another small step towards implementing a "list" of those who own firearms - a precursor to eventual registration. Of course, as we all know, registration may lead to confiscation - as it has elsewhere.

        I'd really like to see more emphasis on punishing criminals instead of trying to continually erode the Second Amendment rights of ordinary citizens who are not the problem in the first place.
        1. The 2nd Admendment never states anything about background checks. All it says is that you have the right to bear arms. It also never states what can and can not be bought. Those are all interpretations of the 2nd Admendment. IF you think it is bad, challenge it and then take it all the way up to the Supreme Court.

        2. A list? Really, you are worried about being on a list for weapons? They could easily get that anywhere else in the world. Did you buy ammo recently? With a debit/credit card? Have you ever bought a fire arm from a store? Hell being a LEO, you could already be on a "list."

        This will not stop legal, law abiding citizens from buying a gun. Hell, I personally ONLY buy from stores.
        Sworn - 9/16/11

        Comment


        • #5
          This changes nothing for CA.....private party handgun sales are already a felony here......all handgun sales are required to go through a FFL.
          The posts on this forum by this poster are of his personal opinion, and his personal opinion alone

          "Politicians are like diapers. They need to be changed often and for the same reason"

          "We fight not for glory; nor for wealth; nor honor, but only and alone we fight for freedom, which no good man surrenders but with his life"

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by LA DEP View Post
            This changes nothing for CA.....private party handgun sales are already a felony here......all handgun sales are required to go through a FFL.



            That really, really sucks. I can't believe that.....well, it's Kalifornia.......so I can.

            .

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by LA DEP View Post
              This changes nothing for CA.....private party handgun sales are already a felony here......all handgun sales are required to go through a FFL.
              Rifles?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Fëanor View Post
                Rifles?
                Actually, rereading the section shows that it is ALL firearms that must go through an FFL unless it is a curio type weapon
                The posts on this forum by this poster are of his personal opinion, and his personal opinion alone

                "Politicians are like diapers. They need to be changed often and for the same reason"

                "We fight not for glory; nor for wealth; nor honor, but only and alone we fight for freedom, which no good man surrenders but with his life"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Boomslang View Post
                  1. The 2nd Admendment never states anything about background checks. All it says is that you have the right to bear arms. It also never states what can and can not be bought. Those are all interpretations of the 2nd Admendment. IF you think it is bad, challenge it and then take it all the way up to the Supreme Court.

                  2. A list? Really, you are worried about being on a list for weapons? They could easily get that anywhere else in the world. Did you buy ammo recently? With a debit/credit card? Have you ever bought a fire arm from a store? Hell being a LEO, you could already be on a "list."

                  This will not stop legal, law abiding citizens from buying a gun. Hell, I personally ONLY buy from stores.
                  I would have to disagree with your point of view.
                  -How often have you ever tried to get a "list" of people who have purchased firearms or related items?
                  -A credit card statement is not going to reveal that you purchased a gun or ammo... it's not a reciept, nor is it just available anywhere.
                  -The second amendment does state that there shall be no INFRINGEMENT upon these rights.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Some places list it as sporting goods to the cc company. I've never bought ammo online. Cheaper at gunshows.
                    sigpic

                    "Po Po coming through!" all rights reserved DJS



                    'Do we really need 'smart bombs' to drop on these dumb bastards?'

                    http://www.snipercompany.com/

                    M16/AR15/M4 Armorer

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      If you purchase something at Walmart for instance. Walmart has a massive data tracking system that tracks all their purchases. That data is then stored in data warehouses. Which is generally run by outside companies contracted through Walmart. Point is, if they want to find people who buy ammo, which mostly means they own a gun, it can be tracked. Yes, a LEO won't get that kind of information, but the Federal Government could easily get it if they so wished. I didn't even mention the transactions that a credit/debit card would create because that purchase is given a number and tracked to where and when and what.

                      The 2nd amendment is stating the ability to own a gun. Point me in the direction where it says the type of gun, how to get the gun and where to get the gun.
                      Sworn - 9/16/11

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Such legislation makes me dizzy. If it had already been in place for the past few years I can't imagine the headaches it would have caused me. Dad died and left us about a dozen guns and instructions as to who should receive which gun. Add to that, the fact that in the past few years I've bought guns for my wife, both daughters, two stepsons, two nephews and given one to my grandson.

                        How do you do a background check on a kid? It's not illegal for a kid to own or possess a gun in my state, they just can't buy the gun or ammo.

                        Last but not least... dows anyone really think such a rule will keep criminals from becoming armed? Really?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Camo Cop View Post
                          Last but not least......does anyone really think such a rule will keep criminals from becoming armed? Really?

                          The anti-freedom folks will never admit it, but that is not their goal at all. They know, well as we do, that the criminals will not obey any 'gun control' laws; but it is just another brick in their incremental wall against the Second Amendment. They will keep passing new laws, little by little.....until it is too expensive, too cumbersome or too bureaucratic for us law-abiding folks to bother with purchasing guns altogether.

                          Meanwhile, crime will probably go up and there will be even more hue & cry for politicians to "do something" about gun-related crime. Of course, they'll be happy to oblige and will pass even more useless laws.

                          As the old saying goes, "Guns only have to enemies: Rust and politicians."

                          The comments above reflect my personal opinion as a private citizen, ordinary motorist and all-around good guy.

                          The aforementioned advice should not be construed to represent any type of professional opinion, legal counsel or other type of instruction with regard to traffic laws, judicial proceedings or official agency policy.

                          ------------------------------------------------

                          "Ignorance on fire is hotter than knowledge on ice."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Boomslang View Post
                            If you purchase something at Walmart for instance. Walmart has a massive data tracking system that tracks all their purchases. That data is then stored in data warehouses. Which is generally run by outside companies contracted through Walmart. Point is, if they want to find people who buy ammo, which mostly means they own a gun, it can be tracked. Yes, a LEO won't get that kind of information, but the Federal Government could easily get it if they so wished. I didn't even mention the transactions that a credit/debit card would create because that purchase is given a number and tracked to where and when and what.

                            The 2nd amendment is stating the ability to own a gun. Point me in the direction where it says the type of gun, how to get the gun and where to get the gun.
                            I would guess that 50% or more of the ammo sold at Walmart is bought to be resold at gunshows for 2x the price.

                            Bill
                            Just pay your dues, and be quiet :-)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Boomslang View Post
                              If you purchase something at Walmart for instance. Walmart has a massive data tracking system that tracks all their purchases. That data is then stored in data warehouses. Which is generally run by outside companies contracted through Walmart. Point is, if they want to find people who buy ammo, which mostly means they own a gun, it can be tracked. Yes, a LEO won't get that kind of information, but the Federal Government could easily get it if they so wished. I didn't even mention the transactions that a credit/debit card would create because that purchase is given a number and tracked to where and when and what.

                              The 2nd amendment is stating the ability to own a gun. Point me in the direction where it says the type of gun, how to get the gun and where to get the gun.
                              Of course the ATF has a list of initial firearm purchases(firearms... not ammo). Your initial comment implied that pretty-much anyone who is handy with a computer could just retrieve this information from the internet.

                              The last four words of the second amendment are "shall not be infringed." To the liberals, this seems to mean that they should be able to restrict every aspect of gun ownership... without actually banning all firearms. To conservatives, the second amendment is taken more at face value, as in not infringing at all on gun ownership.

                              Of course things have changed alot since the "age of flint-locks," and common sense laws are acceptable. I strongly believe a convicted felon shouldn't have a gun... but they're felons and they don't obey the law in the first place. I do, however disagree with restrictions on how many bullets my gun can hold, how long my gun has to be, and what kind of ammo I am allowed to carry. I also agree with backround checks, but generally people who don't mind backround checks don't have anything to hide in the first place. The vast majority of guns that I take off of people due to their criminal actions, are stolen from law-abiding citizens in the first place. Therefore the backround check didn't really do much good.

                              Anti-gun legislation does nothing to save lives.

                              According to the United States Department of Transportation, just about 760,980 people died in car crashes in 2009.

                              Should we start implementing legislation to greatly restrict vehicle use? We could inact law that requires you to wear a helmet everytime you operate a vehicle, or how about forcing automakers to start restricting the vehicle's speed to 35mph. We could save alot of lives with just those two pieces of legislation. It should be incredibly easy considering driving or owning a vehicle isn't even a right. This, of course, sounds absurd.

                              Bottom-line... new gun legislation only affects those of us who haven't done anything wrong in the first place.

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 5505 users online. 318 members and 5187 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X