Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 62

Thread: Firestorm in WA over background check discussions

  1. #1
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-06-06
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    2,619

    Firestorm in WA over background check discussions

    Tempers went ballistic in the firearms community Wednesday morning when the Seattle Times reported that gun rights advocate Alan Gottlieb was negotiating with state lawmakers on so-called “universal background checks.”

    http://www.examiner.com/article/fire...id=db_articles


    And now...the "rest" of the story...

  2. #2
    Administrator   
    Join Date
    11-19-03
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    13,086
    Now that's a real "compromise", so it will, of course, be demonized and shouted down by the leftists.
    If total government control equals safety, why are prisons so dangerous?

    http://czforumsite.info/

  3. #3
    Member  
    Join Date
    08-23-07
    Posts
    7,959
    Quote Originally Posted by armoredman View Post
    Now that's a real "compromise", so it will, of course, be demonized and shouted down by the leftists.
    Well what do you expect? A compromise that requires the left to give up any of it's hard fought victories? That's not only un-American it's just not fair!!!!

  4. #4
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    10-01-09
    Location
    Tulsa, OK
    Posts
    6,288
    Dave, I posted an article out of AM Law Journal that was about Allan Gura. Those guys at SAF are not absolutists. However, they do a pretty good job at defending us.
    Brandon

    Take a kid shooting. They are the future.

  5. #5
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-12-09
    Location
    Suburban Wasteland of NC
    Posts
    768
    An even better compromise would be for the ATF to decide that all Title I firearms are hereafter considered curios. People collect all sorts of firearms after all, not just stuff like CZ82s or guns over 50 years old.

    01 FFLs don't seem to like my idea much, though I've yet to see one put up a logical argument against it.

  6. #6
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    10-24-04
    Location
    Supply, NC/Afghanistan
    Posts
    1,122
    Thanks for the article Dave.


    CD
    De Oppresso Liber

    Iraq: 91,03-06,08, 09,15 & 16'
    Afghanistan: 09,10',11',14',17' & 18'

  7. #7
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    10-01-09
    Location
    Tulsa, OK
    Posts
    6,288
    Quote Originally Posted by happygeek View Post
    An even better compromise would be for the ATF to decide that all Title I firearms are hereafter considered curios. People collect all sorts of firearms after all, not just stuff like CZ82s or guns over 50 years old.

    01 FFLs don't seem to like my idea much, though I've yet to see one put up a logical argument against it.
    Isnt the AR approaching 50 yrs old? Maybe even the AK?
    Brandon

    Take a kid shooting. They are the future.

  8. #8
    Administrator   
    Join Date
    11-19-03
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    13,086
    The earliest ARs are C&R now, as Colt sold the first ones to civilians in 1963. The AK is over 50 years old, but I don't think we were importing semi-auto clones for many years afterwards.
    If total government control equals safety, why are prisons so dangerous?

    http://czforumsite.info/

  9. #9
    Member  
    Join Date
    08-23-07
    Posts
    7,959
    Quote Originally Posted by armoredman View Post
    The earliest ARs are C&R now, as Colt sold the first ones to civilians in 1963. The AK is over 50 years old, but I don't think we were importing semi-auto clones for many years afterwards.
    But hasn't the AR platform been improved to the point of redesign several times since then?

  10. #10
    Moderator  
    Join Date
    11-30-07
    Location
    Co. Springs
    Posts
    7,514
    Quote Originally Posted by Selena View Post
    But hasn't the AR platform been improved to the point of redesign several times since then?
    I wouldn't go so far as to say "redesigned" they worked on the chamber, added a forward assist, and a brass deflector and made the barrel heavier. but haven't changed the basic design.

    As a bit of trivia they also went from a three pronged flash surpressor to an enclosed ring.

    Perhaps an old 'Nam vet can tell us why.
    It is your dissatisfaction with what IS that is the source of all of your unhappiness. Matthew Scudder

  11. #11
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-06-06
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    2,619
    Quote Originally Posted by treo View Post
    i wouldn't go so far as to say "redesigned" they worked on the chamber, added a forward assist, and a brass deflector and made the barrel heavier. But haven't changed the basic design.

    As a bit of trivia they also went from a three pronged flash surpressor to an enclosed ring.

    Perhaps an old 'nam vet can tell us why.


    Thread Hijack!!!

    Let's get it back on track:

    Tide definitely turned for Gottlieb on gun checks

    For a few hours Wednesday, Bellevue’s Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, felt like the guest of honor at a public lynching.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/tide...id=db_articles

    Last edited by Dave Workman; February 21st, 2013 at 09:16 PM.

  12. #12
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    10-01-09
    Location
    Tulsa, OK
    Posts
    6,288
    Background checks are a given. An overwhelming majority of Americans, including gun owners, favor some form of check to prevent convicted felons and mentally unstable people from legally buying firearms. It is a given that determined criminals and crazy people will find a way to get guns, but the reasoning appears to be that the checks make it harder.
    I don't agree with this.
    Brandon

    Take a kid shooting. They are the future.

  13. #13
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    09-24-08
    Location
    Approximately US60 & AZSR87
    Posts
    3,083
    Quote Originally Posted by bruno2 View Post
    Background checks are a given. An overwhelming majority of Americans, including gun owners, favor some form of check to prevent convicted felons and mentally unstable people from legally buying firearms. It is a given that determined criminals and crazy people will find a way to get guns, but the reasoning appears to be that the checks make it harder.
    I don't agree with this.
    Instead of a background check that verifies you are permitted to own a gun, how about a verification check of a registration data base of individuals deemed mentally ill or have felony convictions? You present your ID and the FFL searches the database for your SSN. No hit and you're good to go. Kinda like registering the ineligibles and leaving the rest of us alone.

    Just an idee-er.

    Zip
    "Few of the great tragedies of history were created by the village idiot, and many by the village genius." Thomas Sowell
    "Sometimes absurdity is worth it for its own sake." Andrew Breitbart
    "Reality is not optional." Thomas Sowell

  14. #14
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-06-06
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    2,619
    Quote Originally Posted by Zipperhead View Post
    Instead of a background check that verifies you are permitted to own a gun, how about a verification check of a registration data base of individuals deemed mentally ill or have felony convictions? You present your ID and the FFL searches the database for your SSN. No hit and you're good to go. Kinda like registering the ineligibles and leaving the rest of us alone.

    Just an idee-er.

    Zip

    Find somebody to put it in the form of legislation....

    That's how this works...

  15. #15
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-06-06
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    2,619
    Quote Originally Posted by bruno2 View Post
    I don't agree with this.
    Okay, so that doesn't make it any less factual.

    Look, I don't like background checks for any number of reasons, but from a journalist's perspective...it's like prior restraint.

    But I'm pragmatic about this. The background check appears to be here to stay. The least offensive we can make it, the better, and if we can get something in return for our inconvenience...such as the end of a pistol registry...that's got some potential.

  16. #16
    Moderator  
    Join Date
    11-30-07
    Location
    Co. Springs
    Posts
    7,514

    Apologies for the thread hijack

    I actually had an AHA moment that has changed my position on background checks yesterday.

    I realized that what I said about background checks for private sales (what's the point, they don't prosecute the ones they find now?) applied just as much to retail sales.

    According to the NRA-ILA there were 17 million background checks conducted last year out of that number 79,000 were denied and of that number 62 (that's not a typo it's not 62 thousand it's sixty two) were prosecuted and only thirteen were convicted.

    Coupling that with VP Biden's statement that the Government simply doesn't have the resources to follow up on these cases, I'm back to my original question: If you aren't going to enforce the law why keep it on the books except to harass the law abiding or to compile a data base?

    I realize that background checks are here to stay but perhaps we can get on our legistators to actually prosecute violations
    Last edited by Treo; February 22nd, 2013 at 02:06 PM.
    It is your dissatisfaction with what IS that is the source of all of your unhappiness. Matthew Scudder

  17. #17
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-06-06
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    2,619
    Quote Originally Posted by Treo View Post

    I realize that background checks are here to stay but perhaps we can get on our legistators to actually prosecute violations
    Noooo, at some point we get on our legislators to admit the thing doesn't do what it was intended to do.

    They won't make it go away but they will be compelled to think twice about doing something else that doesn't accomplish what it's supposed to.

    In an ideal world, of course

  18. #18
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    09-24-08
    Location
    Approximately US60 & AZSR87
    Posts
    3,083
    They won't make it go away but they will be compelled to think twice about doing something else that doesn't accomplish what it's supposed to.
    Really, Dave? You believe a congress critter will think about something other than his next fundraiser?

    Color me a little cynical.

    Zip
    "Few of the great tragedies of history were created by the village idiot, and many by the village genius." Thomas Sowell
    "Sometimes absurdity is worth it for its own sake." Andrew Breitbart
    "Reality is not optional." Thomas Sowell

  19. #19
    Member  
    Join Date
    08-23-07
    Posts
    7,959
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Workman View Post
    Noooo, at some point we get on our legislators to admit the thing doesn't do what it was intended to do.

    They won't make it go away but they will be compelled to think twice about doing something else that doesn't accomplish what it's supposed to.

    In an ideal world, of course
    *sigh*

    These are politicians... There is what they say it's supposed to do and what it is really supposed to do.

  20. #20
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    10-01-09
    Location
    Tulsa, OK
    Posts
    6,288
    All this background check stuff is going to bite us in the ass just like everything else. The gun grabbers will keep pushing for more and more restrictions. The mental health deal is going to kill us like it or not. People that had their prescription happy Dr. prescribe some anti depressants once will be finding themselves unable to pass the NICS. People that have been passing these things for yrs will all the sudden be criminals.

    It's not going to be good guys. Mark my words on this, it's just another avenue for the libs to shut more people out of the guns.
    Brandon

    Take a kid shooting. They are the future.

  21. #21
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    04-01-08
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    1,925
    Instead of a background check that verifies you are permitted to own a gun, how about a verification check of a registration data base of individuals deemed mentally ill or have felony convictions? You present your ID and the FFL searches the database for your SSN. No hit and you're good to go.
    Exactly. Assuming (for the moment) that background checks are going to be done, what matters is who does them. If the government does them, that's registration, and of course the transaction will be recorded no matter what the law says about it.

    If, on the other hand, government simply keeps a list of prohibited persons (which it already does for NICS), and distributes this list on the internet to any seller (including private sellers), then the seller does the check and the transaction is not recorded (unless the seller wants to for his own purposes, but that is between the seller and buyer). At any rate there is no national or state registry. There is no gun registration or gun owner registration.

    I don't know if this is what Gottlieb is proposing. If it is not, then he deserves to be lynched.

    But I'm pragmatic about this. The background check appears to be here to stay.
    There are times to be pragmatic, and there are times to say, "Hell NO!" It's hard to say where we are at the moment, but I firmly believe that even if it is possible to make a good deal in the legislature, our real future is in massive non-compliance. The latter also corrects the problem with the whole notion of "prohibited persons": even ex-felons have a right to life and to the tools to defend that life. Crime is doing something inherently evil, not in simply owning some thing, which is a notion profoundly hostile to liberty.

  22. #22
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    09-24-08
    Location
    Approximately US60 & AZSR87
    Posts
    3,083
    Exactly. Assuming (for the moment) that background checks are going to be done, what matters is who does them. If the government does them, that's registration, and of course the transaction will be recorded no matter what the law says about it.

    If, on the other hand, government simply keeps a list of prohibited persons (which it already does for NICS), and distributes this list on the internet to any seller (including private sellers), then the seller does the check and the transaction is not recorded (unless the seller wants to for his own purposes, but that is between the seller and buyer). At any rate there is no national or state registry. There is no gun registration or gun owner registration.
    Really, all it has to be is an "e-verify" system for FFL sales. It does not have to be a government agency. It could be a firearms trade association data base of prohibited buyers that is continuously updated on a daily basis. With government doing health care now, there is no reason not to require mental health professionals from registering their patients that would qualify as unstable of dangerous on the data base. Same requirement for LE. Every individual with a conviction that places them in the prohibited category would have his data entered as a course of recording his conviction by the court system.

    When an FFL uses the data base, it would only return a prohibited "positive" or "not prohibited" determination. The "not prohibited" would be an electronic form the FFL could print and attach to his 4473. All "positive" hits could be automatically and simultaneously routed to the FBI, local PD and BATFEces. All "not prohibited" results automatically deleted upon printing of the "not prohibited" form by the FFL. The only reason for the "not prohibited" form to be attached to the 4473 would be to protect the FFL from false accusation of selling to a prohibited person.

    It could be pretty simple, actually.
    Just my $0.02.

    Zip
    "Few of the great tragedies of history were created by the village idiot, and many by the village genius." Thomas Sowell
    "Sometimes absurdity is worth it for its own sake." Andrew Breitbart
    "Reality is not optional." Thomas Sowell

  23. #23
    Member  
    Join Date
    08-04-08
    Location
    eastern Massachusetts
    Posts
    8,699
    I like the idea, Zip.

    Given the experiences of anyone who's ever had to deal with a private credit agency (like Equifax), we'd need to make sure there was a straight-forward procedure to correct the errors that WOULD inevitably creep into the system from simple clerical errors, identity fraud...and intentional hacking. And for handling rights-restorations to previously prohibited persons.
    Last edited by Loosedhorse; February 23rd, 2013 at 04:14 PM. Reason: typo

  24. #24
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    04-01-08
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    1,925
    All "not prohibited" results automatically deleted upon printing of the "not prohibited" form by the FFL
    No, Zip. You have missed my point entirely.

    In your example, the "not prohibited" results are automatically deleted. Back in the real world, they are of course duly recorded by the BATFE or FBI. Any time the check is performed in a centralized database, we MUST assume the particulars will be recorded. Government employees do not have to obey the law (or have you missed the "Fast and Furious" mess?) Even if it is done by a non-government agency, it is still amenable to government recording because we MUST assume the agency is either a government snitch or individuals in that agency can be corrupted. How many dollars would it take to corrupt a secretary for example?

    The database, which is just a list of names with Socialist Slave Numbers, must be distributed to individuals and the determination made by the seller, with NO communication back to BATFE or FBI or any other agency. Anything short of that is firearms registration.

  25. #25
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-30-08
    Location
    Blue River Wisconsin, in a little hut in the woods
    Posts
    3,530
    3 pronged suppressor was a twig, leaf and dirt catcher extraordinaire. It was not a good design for use in the field to answer the why on that question.

    As for Gottlieb's stand on the universal check I am in complete agreement with him if it can be done his way because it was the same way I would have agreed with it. The check isn't bad only the paper trail it leaves behind.
    Last edited by Treo; February 24th, 2013 at 09:39 AM. Reason: no edit made pushed the wrong button. Sorry
    1934 – National Firearms Act, 1968 – The Gun Control Act, 1986 – Firearms Owners Protection Act, 1993 – Brady Handguns Violence Act, 1994 – Assault Weapons Ban, 1995 – Gun Free School Zones Act, NO MORE COMPROMISING

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •