The Push for Universal Background Checks [VIDEO]

47

This Week in Gun Rights is TTAG’s weekly roundup of legal, legislative and other news affecting guns, the gun business and gun owners’ rights. 

Chris Murphy to put forth Universal Background Check Bill

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn.
Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

It’s being reported that Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut is planning to put forth universal background check legislation in the coming weeks. It won’t be the first one coming out of the federal legislature this session, but it’s clear this is the type of “Commonsense™” law the establishment is hedging on.

Murphy is waxing on and on about how President Biden “wants to sign” his bill, which may be true, but that doesn’t do him much good in the legislative process of the Senate. Still, though, these are the types of bills we need to keep our eyes on. The type of law that your “hunter” friends would think, “Well shucks, that ain’t so bad….”

In reality, though, something as seemingly simple as having all gun sales conducted through an FFL would have tremendous unintended consequences. Not to mention the millions of Americans living in rural America who depend on friends and family for guns in time of need, it also sets a perverse incentive for gun shops.

Think about it. The used market puts a lot of pressure on gun shops to keep prices reasonable. After all, why would someone spend $800 on gun X when it’s available on a local trading site all day long for $500? If all sales had to be conducted through the neighborhood dealer, what’s to stop him from setting the fee for a government transfer at $300 (short of morality)?

While my example may be egregious, we all know a local gun store that now charges $75, $100, or more, for transfers. If FFLs were given a hard monopoly on the gun transfer trade, it would be hard for morality to win out over the monetary incentive.

What’s at SCOTUS: 3D Printed Lawsuits and Excessive Force

Scotusblog covered two interesting cases, Grewal v. Defense Distributed, and City of Hayward v. Stoddard-Nunez.

Grewal is a fascinating case about federal court jurisdiction, because it’s a double-edged sword for all the parties involved. It involves New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal, who sent a cease and desist letter to Texas’s Defense Distributed.

DD argues (rightly) that Grewal overstepped his bounds, and violated their rights. So DD brings suit in federal court in Texas. Then, ironically, the New Jersey Attorney General (who just tried to exert his NJ authority on the Texas company) argues that the Texas Court has no jurisdiction to hear a case involving his conduct. A real head spinner.

The concept of personal jurisdiction is almost as old as English law itself, and it’s a constantly evolving field. There’s no telling which way this will go, but either way, it’s sure to change the landscape of how things move forward in our world. Surely one to keep an eye on.

Hayward v. Stoddard-Nunez is about qualified immunity and excessive force at the hands of police. Stoddard-Nunez, a passenger in a motor vehicle, was killed when a City of Hayward, California police officer fired nine shots into a fleeing vehicle, the driver of which was suspected of the high crime of drunk driving.

Officer Manuel Troche testified that the vehicle swerved toward him, and asserted the defense of qualified immunity. The District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the case on the grounds of qualified immunity, preventing the plaintiffs from going forward and proving whether or not Troche’s mag dump into the fleeing vehicle was reasonable.

The case is the latest in a long line challenging the judicially-invented legal doctrine of qualified immunity, which has come to stand for the proposition that, unless a government actor misbehaves in a way almost identical to one in a previous lawsuit, they are immune to civil liability. This has incentivized agents of the state to behave in uniquely bizarre ways, so as to shield themselves from lawsuits.

Forbes: Will the Nation’s Sheriffs Save us from Federal Gun Control?

Sheriff Scott Jenkins(Jeff Hulbert for TTAG)

Chris Dorsey over at Forbes is opining that the federal gun control agenda will “meet stiff opposition” from the America’s Sheriffs, who say they will not enforce unconstitutional laws. This comes amidst the growing popularity of “Second Amendment sanctuary” provisions, declarations, and otherwise. But what good will it actually do?

I’ve been complaining for a long time that if these Sheriffs actually want to help us, there is only one solution: give these sanctuary provisions teeth through civil damages.

Right now, in virtually all instances, if a deputy in one of these “sanctuaries” goes ahead and enforces gun laws anyway, there’s no recourse for the victim. This means the provisions are nothing but idle promises to placate the people in the jurisdiction, not to mention the fact that most of these sanctuary laws expressly exclude the most egregious forms of gun control (such as the GCA and NFA) from their exclusion.

The best way to solve this would be a civil damages provision, where anyone who has a law prohibiting simple possession of firearms enforced against them by the jurisdiction which is designated a sanctuary, gets an automatic money damages award to the tune of something like…$200,000. This would likely be enough to prevent wily deputies from simply ignoring the provision. But alas, the sanctuary laws remain toothless for now.

As Safe Storage Laws are Pushed, 12-year-old Defends Grandmother

defensive gun use handgun pistol shooting
Shutterstock

We always hear from the ivory tower that, if minors might be in your home, you need to lock your guns up. Clearly not all minors are created equal, as has been proven time and again. This story from North Carolina proves the obvious problem with one-size-fits-all policy.

Congress Briefing on Braces

SB Tactical pistol stabilizing brace
Travis Pike for TTAG

The Congressional Research Service has released a document on “the brace question,” seemingly priming Congress to “do something” about a non-existent problem. CRS is supposed to be a neutral party to inform Congress, but the brief smacks of bias, referring to braced pistols as a “gray area” in the law. Go figure.  

47 COMMENTS

  1. “Any” bill that is authored by scumbags like this need to go directly into the shredder! I think everyone now understands the word “commonsense” is the favorite tactic of a deceitful bunch of socialists! Fooling noone, none of the time!!

    • The Federal Government simply has no authority to regulate intrastate commerce (which is what this would be). The Constitution clearly lays out the authority of the Federal Government, and it can interfere with interstate, but not intrastate commerce. The 10th Amendment clearly tells us that everything not designated to the Federal government is retained by the States and the people.

      Then again, many Federal legislators probably don’t understand this, and many more just don’t give a shite what the Constitution says. Furthermore, cowardly and/or corrupt courts usually side with them.

      Come soon Lord Jesus

      And the Government will be upon His shoulders

      • Art Out West,

        Friendly correction to your comment:

        “… The Constitution clearly lays out the authority of the Federal Government, and it can interfere with interstate, but not intrastate commerce.”

        That is not what the U.S. Constitution says or means. Rather, the U.S. Constitution says and means that the federal government has authority to prevent individual states from interfering with interstate commerce. The U.S. Constitution does not empower the federal government to interfere with interstate commerce. Saying it another way, the only legitimate Constitutional authority that the federal government has is to ensure that interstate commerce occurs smoothly (for lack of a better word) without interference.

    • everyone now understands the word “commonsense” is the favorite tactic of a deceitful bunch of socialists

      “Commonsense” (aka common sense) is something that is not actually a prime requisite for election to ANY government office and it is obvious that the majority of elected officials take full advantage of THAT “loophole”….

  2. This is what happens when so called gun rights people argue their case based on hunting and sporting rifle BS instead on arguing based on the fact that Gun Control in any shape or form is rooted in racism and genocide.

    Until so called gun rights people man up and call out those with their racist and nazi based Gun Control agenda will continue to use their government cohorts to, “Threaten You and “Bully You.”
    Nothing new…It’s all along the lines of the democRat Party using their military wing also known as the KKK to Threaten, Bully and if necessary Murder Black Americans if they did not comply with Gun Control.

    You see the above ratbassturd pictured with his big stupid piehole wide open? So called Gun Rights people need to man up and shove The Truth About Gun Control down his throat and the throats of every pos like him.
    And do not stop shoving until their deranged race based democRat Party KKK Gun Control is as acceptable in America as the N-word.

    • Marxists don’t give a crap about “racism” or “genocide”. Those are just magic words they use to manipulate people’s emotions.

      Marxists are the most racist and genocidal people around, but it doesn’t matter. They will never be held accountable for it. Furthermore, they will terrorize decent people without a racist bone in their bodies by calling them names like “racist”.

      Quit playing their games Debbie

      • The word “terrorist” is similar. It doesn’t mean much. Marxists and other evil people (who actually are terrorists) use it as magic word to terrorize regular people.

        These days many Democrats (and a lot of Republicans) seem to regard the majority of Americans as potential terrorists. Anyone who wants to keep men out of the girls bathroom is basically a terrorist.

    • Yes, gun control is very deeply rooted in racist ideology, specifically the idea that black people should not have access to guns.

      Of course, through American history, it is the mentally retarded liberal (democrat) leaders and the hordes of their insane libturd minions that pushed these ideas, including eugenics, at which they have become extremely successful (planned butcherhood).

      These liberal racists have done well, especially considering most of them are simply stupid idiots whose sole argumental resources consist of “feelings”….

      You can see that in a few short sentences, the whole premise of the anti Bill of Rights movement can be exposed as a fraud.

      I personally blame Dr. Seuss, Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers Neighborhood for all this nonsense. Most kids are NOT special, and when they discovers this, they become insane libturd minions… 🙂

  3. I’m coming to terms with the new format, Dan (admittedly due in part to the fact that I haven’t seen an article authored by the pasty, soulless Ginger-befreckled, Fudd cock-holster Michael Arnold in a while), but I’m still missing the continuity of the old format.

    I THINK I’m seeing all of the new articles, but unfamiliar headlines always end up showing up in different sections. Can we make sure the “what’s new” scrolling banner, or whatever e-fag thing you guys call it, includes everything, regardless whatever newspeak category you argyle-wearing, tweed jacket stroking POTG elites put it in?

    Cool?

    Cool.

    Quit fucking shit up, Dan.
    Don’t make me call Robert.

  4. Damn. Looks like you could get 3 or 4 cocks in that giant pie-hole on Murphy. Wondering if that’s a nightly occurrence, or if he just saves that for the weekends.

  5. That transfer fee of $75 is in line with what it costs to do business. Taxes, licensing, skyrocketing rent, high insurance costs, and the fact everyone throws it on a credit card which after choke point is expensive plus the percentages lost to the processing companies and the damn airline or cash back rewards. Add to all that the firm gets kept for 20 years, and the risk the FFL takes on if it’s missing, after all gun goes into the store on the books and moves over, also on the books. As an FFL I hate transfers and for a while had stopped doing them all together just to save the pain in the rear when your best friend/brother/son gets denied and now I have to 4473 that gun back to you 10 days later.

    • WA taxes must be insane, because that’s not what reasonable FFL’s charge in my state. $20 + cost of S&H here. Some of the big shops charge outlandish fees ($75-100) so that you won’t bother with them, so we don’t. Those same shops were charging $500 for a beater SKS and $1500 for a CZ Skorpion “Pistol” before the COVID panic started..

      It’s just a bit ridiculous. Most FFL’s won’t accept guns mailed from private individuals, and a large number of FFL’s want nothing to do with transfers. Looks an awful lot like FFL’s just don’t want a second-hand gun market to exist.

      • PA FFLs average $40-$50 for a trnasfer. I have seen as high as $75 and as low as $20 for the first gun and $10 for subsequent guns on the same transaction. That was at Smithgall’s in Lancaster a couple of years ago. It might have changed in the kung flu plandemic.

        In PA this only applies to handguns. Long guns can be bought and sold with no FFL involved.

  6. “The driver of which was suspected of the high crime of drunk driving.”
    I have known two people who have been killed by drunk drivers in the last 10 years. So yes, high crime. Uber, Lyft and the cellphone all mean there’s literally no excuse. At a minimum you should lose your license for 5 years if you’re caught drunk driving. If you kill or injure someone while driving drunk you should hang. No clemency, no waiting 30 years on deathrow. Sort it out that week, move them to the head of the line.

    I think this entire forum would pitch a fit if we heard of some random gun owner walking around with a revolver playing Russian roulette with strangers against their will. Driving drunk is no different.

    • While I agree with you, I must point out that you are encouraging with many on this list would call a ‘nanny state’.

      You are advocating that we ‘red flag’ drivers, merely based on the fact they’ve had a drink or two and ‘might’ be a hazard to others.

      Just because one individual behaves in a reckless manner operating his gun, I mean car, should we take away another’s right to possess a firearm, I mean car?

      I guess maybe one’s opinion would be affected if they had a loved one who was killed by a gun, I mean car, accident.

      • That’s possibly the dumbest attempt at justifying red flag laws I’ve ever read. Way to really out yourself as a paid shill & non gun owner.
        (1) Driving a car on state roads is a privilege, not a right. You want to drive drunk on your property? Knock yourself out. No one will care.
        (2) Engaging in voluntary recreational drinking and then acting in gross and blatant disregard for the safety of others are a pair of deliberate, voluntary acts. Try acting in a deliberately grossly unsafe manner at an indoor range by waving a loaded gun or playing Russian roulette; you’ll be lucky to be shown the door and told never to come back.
        (3) A cop pulling you over for not being able to drive in a straight line on their roads is a right and proper response to a demonstrable, observed threat to everyone else on the road. There are already laws in place that are the equivalent for guns and they too require evidence. Not a red flag law where anyone can drop a dime on you and say they think you’re a threat with no proof beyond hearsay or their own fevered paranoia.

        • You want to drive drunk on your property? Knock yourself out. No one will care

          Careful, You CAN be charged with DUI/DWI and even public intoxication on your own “private property” and that can extend to ANY motorized vehicle such as farm equipment and riding lawn mowers… All it takes is a complaint…

        • The old moving the goalposts technique?

          First you said:

          “At a minimum you should lose your license for 5 years if you’re caught drunk driving.“

          Now you say:

          “Engaging in voluntary recreational drinking and then acting in gross and blatant disregard for the safety of others“

          “caught drunk driving“ has morphed into “acting in gross and blatant disregard for the safety of others“

          Many drivers have been arrested, charged and convicted of DUI for nothing more than blowing past the limit on a breathalyzer. No left of center, no erratic driving, no accidents or injuries and yet they still lose their license and go to jail because they ‘MIGHT’ cause an accident.

          Nanny state, here we come!

        • @MadMaxx Now THAT is nanny state stupidity. If the only person you’ll harm is yourself on your property it’s not the Government’s business.

          @Minertheduplicitous
          You ignored point (1) that driving is a privilege and not a right and on that basis alone you lose the argument. It is within the Government’s rights to regulate your privilege of using the roads, and since reflexes are dulled/dampened considerably with just 1 or 2 drinks, no drinking and driving is a reasonable regulation/restriction of your driving privilege.

          ” “caught drunk driving“ has morphed into “acting in gross and blatant disregard for the safety of others“ ”
          I’m sorry? Are those not the same thing in your mind? If they’re not then we have nothing more to discuss, as anyone reading will know to discount anything else you type as the contrived prevarications of a paid shill.

          Driving under the influence slows your reactions and affects your judgment. We do not allow those who are too weak, vision too poor, or judgment too feeble to drive. Usually those are old people, and yes they get their licenses taken away. If you drink and drive you join the ranks of those who should not be allowed to drive because you no longer meet the minimum requirements for operating a vehicle safely. The drivers you reference deserve to go to jail. They know the requirements for the privilege of driving, they know the penalties for failing to abide by them.

          You’re in favor of red flag laws that deprive you of constitutional rights without due process, without proof of harm, or evidence of any kind.

          I’m in favor of drunk driving laws that afford you full due process, require proof (BAC) and revoke your privilege of driving for violating the laws laying out the requirements for operating a vehicle in a public space on government property.

          You’re in favor of a police state violating the Constitutional right of it’s citizens based on the feefees of pearl clutchers like Shannon Watts. I’m in favor of the reasonable exercise of Government power regulating the actions of it’s citizenry on government property in a public space.

          Our arguments are nothing alike. Your post’s “whataboutism” and accusations of shifting goalposts are nonsensical and utterly non-sequitor.

  7. IT’S CRAZY PEOPLE THAT CAUSE ALL THIS ,, JUST NOW SHOOTING CROSS STREET , FIRST N 42 YEARS LIVED HERE HOPE NOT ANOTHER OR NEVER ANOTHER N 42 YEARS .
    TWELVE OR MORE POLICE N INVESTIGATORS . DON’T KNOW WHAT CAUSED IT , CRAZIES .
    YA ALL STAY SAFE N ALERT , BEST YA CAN .

  8. “Universal background checks” don’t work without the gun registration database, which is the Democrats wet dream. They need that so they know where every gun is (like the criminals will register theirs) so they can come and take them all some night, just like Germany did in 1938. All I can say is “Please try, bring body bags, lots of them, mostly for your Gestapo, because there’s 80 million of us gun owners, even if only 5% fight you, that’s 4 million of us. How many do you have?”

    • But they’ve got tanks, and machinegunms , tear gas, armored vehicles,
      super spy surveillance, rocket launchers, mortars , artillery, air support, and all Ive got is double barrel shotgunm and one shell. Guess I’d better get grandma back to digging the tunnels.

      • AND “snitches” you forgot snitches, the most important asset of all is the asshole that will turn in his neighbor or “friend” for a buck or for “favorable” treatment…. But yes, by all means, keep digging those tunnels… Our advantages are that the military turns over about 1.5 million vets every year and those vets can operate those Tanks, machinegun(m)s, mortars, artillery and air craft (fixed AND rotary) many of which can be found at local National Guard posts along with mass quantities of appropriate ammo, as well as ANY active duty military, there are more than 30x more of us (many with actual combat experience) and many more who are trained/experienced in real world jungle/guerilla and urban/door to door fighting… Basically it comes down to resolve…

      • Don’t forget to put water traps in your tunnel plan, the best way to keep out gas and vapor agents. You might do a little research on what some other freedom fighters did in a place named Cu Chi.

        It’s now a major tourist attraction.

        Old Curt LeMay said “bomb them back to the Stone Age”, he was too stupid to understand they were already there and still kicking our ass.

    • “Universal background checks” don’t work without the gun registration database“

      Help me to understand why that is true.

      The background check shouldn’t require the reporting of the gun make, model or serial number because it is all about the purchaser and their legal right to own a firearm.

      I’m wondering, should there be background checks for the purchase of dynamite, RDX, Semtex or other explosives? How about deadly poisons such as ricin or tabun?
      Should there be a background check for the purchase of biological agents, a culture of smallpox or the plague?

      Asking for a friend…

  9. Check that all heat registers are adjusted open, especially where plumbing pipes might freeze. Unblock cold air returns in heated rooms (they may be blocked with furniture or rug) so heat can circulate efficiently.

  10. While my example may be egregious, we all know a local gun store that now charges $75, $100, or more, for transfers

    Don’t know where YOU live (hope I don’t screw up and move there), but locally in my neck of the woods a transfer fee of $5.00 is standard and a handling fee of $15.00 to $30.00 to receive and (hold for delivery) any on line purchase is the norm…. Guess folks around here haven’t been bitten by the “greed” bug…

  11. I am making a good pay from home 1900 Bucks / week, that is brilliant, beneath a year ago and used to be unemployed amid a monstrous economy. I pass on God consistently. I used to be invested in these bearings, and at present, I should pay it forward and impart it to everyone, Try it, you won’t regret it…Here For MORE INFO PLEASE Just check this SITE…… http://www.right75.com

  12. I am making a good pay from home 1900 Bucks

    And you STILL cannot construct a legible sentence that makes ANY sense to anyone.. Why do you “pass on God consistently?” AND Does the IRS know about your “windfall?” If not I have a feeling a feeling they might very soon…

  13. Just another step forward in the Democrat Socialist Crime Organization’s road to total gun confiscation. Once they build a data base of all the gun owners, they’ll launch a massive gun hunt.

  14. “…they’ll launch a massive gun hunt.” which will eventually be met by a much more massive reply from people in flyover states….

    As Russian Novelist Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said:

    “What would things been like [in Russia] if during periods of mass arrests people had not simply sat there, paling with terror at every bang on the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but understood they had nothing to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people?”

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here