Previous Post
Next Post

According to a recent poll, 90 percent of Americans continue to support “universal background checks.” Given their general ignorance about all things firearm, I reckon 100 percent of the people who support “universal background checks” have no clue what “universal background checks” are, or why anybody would be against them. I say that without malice. Americans busy putting food on the table don’t have the time to examine the ins-and-outs of firearms freedom. But if there are “low information” voters who want to understand why 10 percent of Americans oppose this example of “common sense gun control,” I offer the following primer . . .

Private firearms sales are gun sales between private individuals.

At the moment, the federal government does not require a criminal background check for private firearms sales. Although there are plenty of laws against knowingly selling a firearm to an addict, criminal or mentally ill person, a private seller selling to a private buyer doesn’t have to access the FBI’s instant background system to see if the buyer’s a prohibited person

That’s on the federal level. On the state level, some states (e.g., California) require that all gun sales go through a federal firearms licensee (a.k.a., FFL or gun dealer). By federal law, all buyers who purchase a gun through an FFL must undergo an FBI criminal background check. So in states like California, all private firearms sales are subject to an FBI background check.

So there’s your first point of confusion and contention: some private gun sales are strictly private (no FBI background check or other notification to the local, state or federal government), while some firearms sales between individuals are “semi-private” (mandatory FBI background check though an FFL). It depends entirely on where you live.

To understand why gun owners don’t want a federal law that make background checks “universal” (i.e. mandatory for all private firearms sales) know this: background checks for firearms purchases made through an FFL create a gun registry. A database of who bought what gun when and where.

Strangely, it’s not the background check itself that creates the database. By law, the FBI must destroy the electronic record of all firearms-related background checks by the next business day. As long as the Fibbies follow the letter of the law, an FFL’s criminal background check doesn’t pose a threat to a gun owner’s personal privacy.

It’s The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) that’s the problem. They’re the Agency in charge of making sure that all FFL dealers  maintain a paper record of all firearms sales and transfers in their “bound book.” The ATF requires that FFLs enter the following information about a gun buyer into their bound book:

1. The date of receipt of the firearm;
2. The name and address of the non-licensee or the name and FFL license number of the licensee from whom you received the firearm;
3. The name of the manufacturer and importer (if any) of the firearm;
4. The model of the firearm;
5. The serial number of the firearm;
6. The type of firearm (pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, receiver, frame, etc); and
7. The caliber or gauge of the firearm

This is a gun registry.

By law, the federal government can’t use the information in the FFL dealer’s bound book to create a database (i.e., a centralized gun registry). Only they can. And do.

By law, an FFL dealer must provide sales information recorded in their bound book to various federal agencies when asked to assist with a criminal investigation. By law, an FFL dealer who retires from the business must surrender their bound books to the ATF. In both cases, records are kept, a registry (whether paper or electronic) created.

Bottom line: private firearms sales that go through an FFL dealer, recorded in their bound book, are not private, safe or secure. After Ruby Ridge, Waco and Fast and Furious, gun owners don’t trust the ATF with their personal information.

One more wrinkle: some states maintain a registry of all private firearms sales (e.g., Connecticut, New York and New Jersey).

Gun owners in states where private sales are private—and many of those who live in states with state-run gun registries—don’t see the advantages of the system. The background check system in general, and private sales background checks in specific, don’t deter criminals from illegally obtaining firearms.

The DOJ link establishing source of crime guns has been disabled by government shutdown. Suffice it to say, the oft-repeated statistic that 40 percent of firearms used in crimes come from gun shows (i.e. involving private sales without background checks) is false. Less than four percent of guns used in crimes are attributable to that source. The vast majority are obtained by theft.

More to the point, gun owners who oppose universal background checks see a tremendous downside to the mandate. They believe that universal background checks will lead, eventually, to firearms confiscation.

We can argue about the likelihood of that happening: the federal or state government outlawing and then confiscating a type of weapon (say, assault rifles). We can debate the chances of government deeming an entire class of people unsuitable for gun ownership (say, people who take anti-depressants). But there’s no doubt that a “universal background check” law—requiring all firearms sales to go through an FFL dealer—would create a gun registry.

Equally, there’s no question that gun registries enable gun confiscation. It’s common sense; it’s a whole lot easier to confiscate guns if you know who’s got what gun and where they live.  From gun confiscation a loss of individual liberty inevitably flows, engendering state-sponsored mass murder. That is the nightmare that millions of gun owners fear.

Again, this is not paranoia. The formula—gun registration => gun confiscation => police state => mass murder—is a demonstrable, historical and contemporary fact of life. Click here for a post making that connection. Or ask yourself why anyone would allow themselves to be the victim of genocide if they were armed.

Gun control advocates insist that “expanded” or “universal” background checks would make us safer. The exact opposite is true. Criminals would continue to get access to firearms while the law would put us on the slippery slope to the kind of government tyranny our forefathers fought to make us free.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Most people don’t understand what a background check IS, let alone a universal one.

    If i had a quarter for every time i’ve been in an LGS and a new purchaser asked how to get his ‘permit to buy a gun’, i’d have at least $3.00 (FYI – state of PA)

      • Get your credit cleaned with the help of a reliable hacker. He’s tested and trusted. I had a very low credit score (around 520) and it was ruining my life. I needed help. I was very depressed because of it and had been trying to repair it but It just seems nothing was capable of getting my score raised quickly. I needed something done fast. I had read a lot of good things about this hacker online which gave me a go ahead to try him out. I almost gave up my search for a real hacker because I kept meeting fake hackers who are always after the money, I’ve been conned by them. Spy stealth is not about the money but about attaining a good reputation at always satisfying his customers. This is my way of showing appreciation for a job well done on my credit report. Reach out to him for help at spystealth(.)org(@)g m a i l(.)com. He is affordable and always at your service.

    • Yup. And another quarter for all the folks who came to or called the P.D. to ‘register their gun’. I’d just politely explain this post in short form.

      • This! It blows my mind how many people think that guns are supposed to be registered in the south.

    • Sorry, not exactly on topic with this comment, but I needed to jump in here right at the top.

      I’m actually amazed that RF got all the way through this rather long post and never once mentioned the rather important fact that the very existence of a background check that was and is intended as a means to decide who can and cannot exercise their Right to Keep and Bear Arms is by definition an infringement of that right by the federal government, the prohibition of which was the reason for the Second Amendment to be included in our Bill of Rights.

      Okay, carry on…

  2. The current NICS system was designed to be “open” — that is, available to everyone, not just FFLs. The present system is closed and unavailable to private citizens. Why? Because a record keeping requirement could never successfully be imposed on private parties. There’s no leverage, like revoking the license of an FFL.

    The current Brady Law isn’t about the check, It’s about the records. It’s always been about the records.

    • “The present system is closed and unavailable to private citizens. Why? Because a record keeping requirement could never successfully be imposed on private parties.”
      No, because of the Privacy Act. You go stirring up my privates and I’ll sue you into oblivion after you get out of jail.

        • Look up the part about penalties for misuse of personally identifiable info. And yes, Feebies CAN be sued as individuals. I was in the Pentagon when this change happened, so I remember the sweat well. Not funny at all. And don;t get me started about CSA 87, the FIPS, etc. There’s a whole world of Federal hurt out there that you know nothing about….

        • There’s a whole world of Federal hurt out there that you know nothing about….

          Jus Bill, I’m a lawyer. I know all about Federal hurt.

    • There you have it! The only give the FFL an approval number or tell them it was denied with no explanation.

  3. Isn’t there a state (NH I think?) where private sales can only be to a person you actually know? Add to that ‘or a CHL holder’ (which proves they’ve already been through a background check) and I have no problem with that. I don’t know anyone that’s willing to sell to someone they don’t know without seeing a CHL anyway. The only people that would hurt are non-licensed gunshow peddlers and no one with any sense goes to gunshows anymore.

    • That is the law for handguns, that is not the requirement for long guns. A NH resident can sell a long gun in NH to anyone over age 18. A handgun sale by state law is supposed to be only to someone “known to you to not be a prohibited person”.

  4. Why not just open up the FBI BG check to the public/internet similar to the E verify system. You want to buy a gun from me, I go online, put in your name, it tells me yes or no and I proceed with the transaction.

    No input as to type/serial of a gun, no input as to if you bought a gun or not.

    As the seller, I could simply print the BG verification and keep it as a CYA for me.

    • That system would open to all kinds of abuse. How does the system know that it’s being used for a firearms purchase?

      I have a better idea! Let’s stick to that not be infringed thing and let anyone sell a gun to anyone unless they know the buyer is a prohibited person. As is currently the case in most of the U.S.

      • That system would open to all kinds of abuse.

        How? With a name and address, I can find out more about a person through any one of a dozen online background check companies than a simple “go-no go” from NICS.

        What’s available online? All criminal and civil records, estimated income, amount of mortgage, names of relatives, who resides in the home (relative or not), residence history for at least 20 years, marital status, EVERYTHING.

        • Then why bother to even have NICS? Because you have all the goodies in one chewy delicious ball in a single system.

        • Jus Bill asks “Then why bother to even have NICS?”

          For the records. It’s never been about the background check. It’s always been about the records. That’s why it’s a closed system.

          The NICS check is far less intrusive than an online background check from Intellius or any one of a dozen companies. Run a background check on yourself and see. The difference is that a background check doesn’t generate Federal records.

      • It is currently a go or no-go with the FFL. They get an approval number that they put on their 4473 which goes in the bound book. Individuals don’t keep bound books. This is what perturbs The Brady Bunch, Bloomer, Shoomer, Shotgun Joe Bitme, Eric with-Holder et al.

      • Excuse me, RF, but:

        “I have a better idea! Let’s stick to that not be infringed thing and let anyone sell a gun to anyone unless they know the buyer is a prohibited person….”

        To continue the theme, if we agree to allow the federal government to decide who is a prohibited person we have by default surrendered our claim that the Second Amendment “…shall not be infringed.”

        I understand the realities of the degraded condition of The Constitution of the United States of America in this country at this time, and that repeal of these unconstitutional laws is not likely any time soon, but we have to maintain at least philosophical purity to some extent.

      • Robert Farago says:

        “…I have a better idea! Let’s stick to that not be infringed thing and let anyone sell a gun to anyone unless they know the buyer is a prohibited person. As is currently the case in most of the U.S.”

        ^ This.

        That’s the system here in Ohio…It works fine as far as I’m concerned !
        “…Shall not be infringed.” No More Compromises !

        • Heathen:

          “if we agree to allow the federal government to decide who is a prohibited person we have by default surrendered our claim that the Second Amendment ‘…shall not be infringed.'”

          It can’t be repeated too many times.

    • It’s sometimes hard for honest and straightforward people to understand that the state, and the sociopaths who rise to its top echelon (what else do you call someone who has no qualms about lying to your face repeatedly, with a smile, in order to get what they want out of life), is an apparatus of evil. They do not care one lick about the background checks. If they did, Colburn’s proposals would have been voted on, and could have actually been hailed as a bi-partisan solution (he was advocating exactly what you’re suggesting). Instead, Colburn was completely shut out of the discussions, and the Democrat-controlled senate came up with their biggest fantasy of a RKBA railroading bill.

      They thought Newton finally gave them the ammunition they needed to enact their dream. The bills they proposed (and continue to in certain areas), whether they be at the federal level, in CA, NY, CO, or NJ, have everything to do with making firearm ownership more difficult, with the end goal of completely eliminating it. That’s it, that’s all. They’ve shown their true colors too many times for people not to take them at face value. They think you’re too stupid to notice, care, or remember. Don’t give them the pleasure.

  5. In MA, when transferring a gun to another person, even a close friend or relative, you must fill out a form with all the details of the sale, and send it in to the Department of Public Safety. Up until recently, when these records were computerized, they were kept in great, teetering piles of dated shoeboxes at the DPS. When the boxes reached a certain age, they were destroyed. Most MA gun owners, when making private transfers among friends or relatives, would fill out the form, then privately circular-file it.

    • In a MA private transfer, you can check online to see if the buyer has a valid permit and you can get a certificate from the state attesting to the validity of the permit. Free. Since private sales must be reported on form FA-10 anyway, why not get the certificate?

  6. It’s somewhat ironic- the anti-gun people want to criminalize guns not because gun possession is in and of itself harmful, but because of what some people might do with said guns. We fight against a registry of gun owners not because such a registry is in and of itself harmful, but because of what the government might do with the information in the future.

    • Protecting us from “what the government might do” is most of the point of the Bill of Rights. And “what some people might do” has always been a handy excuse for trying to circumvent those protections.

    • What a small hand full of people might do with a gun, is FAR less harmful and dangerous to society in general than what the government might do. Governments have proven time and time again that they are not to be trusted with the power they wield.

      When should it end? The government is continuously taking more and more power for themselves, and reducing the freedoms of the people with more and more laws and restrictions. When is it enough?

      If it keeps going, how much longer will it be until it’s an all out tyrannical totalitarian government?

      Obama swore left and right when campaigning that he was absolutely not after our guns. First thing he does when reelected,… try to ban guns. Biden said to protect your family by buying a double barrel shotgun and shoot into the air twice (rendering the gun unloaded) instead of using a proper modern gun in a proper, safe manner.. Bloomberg made large cups illegal for restaurants to sell for god’s sake. Do you want to hand people like them more power to decide how we should live their lives?

      I do see your point. But people need FAR more protection from what a government might do than what a tiny percentage of crazies or criminals might do.

      Our government is full of crazies and criminals. They need to be feared and restricted more than we as people do.

  7. One of the problems is, 99.9% of non gun owners believe the media BS that when you buy firearms online, you dont need a BG check, they just send you whatever guns you order straight to your house. They dont understand that while ues, you order the firearm without a BG check, it must go to a FFL where you pick it up, where you HAVE to get a BG check.
    Ive explained this to many people, and theyve literally told me “no youre wrong, you can order firearms online without a BG check”

      • Those droids wouldn’t know how to even begin to buy a gun without Tweeting 20 friends and Googling it. And they’re proud of their ignorance. His point is that it’s like trying to communicate with the dead.

        • His point is that it’s like trying to communicate with the dead.

          Guided discovery. Take them to web sites that sell guns. See if they can buy them without a background check. Offer to pay for the gun if they can. The worst that can happen is that they STFU.

  8. How about the fact that the checks don’t do any good? In terms of mass shooters they all passed background checks.

    In terms of everyday street crime, background checks don’t stop straw purchases, theft, and other ways of getting guns into the black market where the background checks don’t apply. We see this by the very fact that California, New Jersey, Connecticut, New York, et al, are not paragons of peace and safety, they are exactly the opposite.

  9. Most “universal background checks” I’ve read, also require background checks for temporary transfers. Want to go shooting in the great outdoors with a trusted friend? Plan on shooting each other’s guns? Better get a background check for each weapon or you’re breaking the law. Pay a separate fee for each gun and you might have to take out a second mortgage to pay for your afternoon of fun. And they wonder why we’re against them.

    • This point is a biggie, and nobody knows or acknowledges it, or that it was what Manchin/Toomey was about.
      Not that it outright made such private transers or even gifts illegal without a check, but that it left wide open shoddy language in law that would have allowed it to be used this way.

  10. Excellent explanation Robert. I book marked it for future reference. I really like your idea. The real key information as you pointed out is the FBI BG check. A simple yes or no answer would be all that is needed. We need to hold the line on this issue. I remember reading some where that Gun confiscation in England started with a Gun registry.

  11. “Yes… yes. Go to the sporting goods store. From the files obtain forms 4473. These will contain descriptions of weapons, and lists of private ownership.”

  12. In addition to what ColtMag said above.
    Would the 90% figure of BG checks support be reached if you ask the Man on the street:
    “Would you be in favor of a law that made you a felon if you went on vacation or a work assignment out of town for a month?”
    The response would be “Are you nuts, what do you mean”.
    We then say, “No, I am not nut’s but law makers are because you would have illegaly transferred your guns in your house to your girlfriend who didn’t go with you.”
    Not sure if that language made it into the final bill that died in congress.

  13. Yes, the 2A is the only carry permit we should need, but since we have them in many states and if you break bad, you will have your permit pulled. A private sale would then only require a phone call to your state and ask” is permit #1234567890 still valid. The only legitimate political pressure from grabbers would be for the state to keep their permit data base current.
    If you don’t hold a CCW then maybe a BG check from an FFL that evaprates.

  14. You fail to address the constitutionality of the Federal government infringing on State’s rights. I am sure they will make up some hocus-pocus ruling to justify their power grab.

    • ATF’s entire validation rests on the Interstate Commerce Clause and their ability to tax. As such, the 1934 NFA should be struck down.

    • I am still waiting on anyone to give me a reasonable explanation as to why, after more than 230 years, “States Rights” do not allow laws that interfere with the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, etc. amendments, but any state can pass as many gun controls laws as they can dream up? How does that work? Either the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a natural, civil and Constitutionally protect right the cannot be infringed, or it is not. Unlike the First Amendment there is no language stating “Congress shall make no law…” The Second Amendment states flatly, “…shall not be infringed.”

      And I’m pretty sure whatever legal explanation may be dreamed up is pretty convoluted and skirts wildly around the consideration of all of the Bill of Rights being natural, civil and Constitutionally protected.

        • Those signs don’t have the force of law in Florida. For that matter, neither do the “no photography” signs.

          • In some states they do, and a CCW holder can lose thier permit in some places. Plus, we can count on over zealous law enforcement to make a felony out of a missed sign.

      • Actually, there are multiple laws that allow infringement on the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights. Requiring permits and fees to assemble is one. Forbidding an invocation at a high school football game is another. All of the week probable cause arguments to search and enter homes or search vehicles is another. Then there is the “stop and frisk” policies. There is also the violation of being secure in our papers and effects regarding email, text messages and phone calls. As far as the 5th goes, Zimmerman was brought to trial in an “alleged infamous crime” without a Grand Jury indictment. The Bill of rights have been getting hammered on for 100 years.

        • But are any of them constitutional? By that I do not mean did te court fail to strike them down either. SCOTUS has gotten too many wrong especially in recent years.

        • @ JeremyR, If I thought they were constitutional, I wouldn’t have mentioned them. For example (link bleow), the deputies went through an open window just because there was a bucket under it . Thiswas well beyond probable cause. They claimed no one answered the door when the knocked, well after dark in August.

          Here is another example. They were at the wrong house, wrong complex yet they knocked the door down etc. Prior to that, the punk U.S. Marshal was holding down on a lady doing dishes in her own house. His punk ass lame excuse was he wanted to go home alive. If that is his argument, get a job door greeting at WalMart. Plus, he shouldn’t be allowed to blanket search dozens of homes based on an anon tip regarding and alleged fugitive. Lastly, they should have done a little police work and most likely didn’t need a militarized SWAT team.

  15. As objectionable as we find a gun registry, there is another potentially more compelling problem with universal background checks that most of the alleged “90%” don’t comprehend – the definition of a firearms transfer. A transfer doesn’t occur only when a firearm is bought or sold. It also includes passing possession where title is never intended to transfer.

    Those who might view the fear of a registry as paranoia will still find it ridiculous to requiring a background check before a farmer could lend his shotgun to his guest on his own land or one hunter lending a rifle to another for a hunt. Understanding the practical implementation requirements of a universal background check are often more persuasive in showing it for the bad idea that it is.

    • ^^^This. x a million internets. Was going to reply with this myself – it’s not “sales”, it’s “transfers”, and the knock-on effects of trying to nail down the definition thereof. DiFi’s recent bill would have made it a felony to hand a gun to a buddy if plinking on public lands or private land not your own without first doing a BG check. And presumably another BG check when they hand it back to you.

  16. Maryland just did the biggest natural experiment in history, letting tens of thousands of guns go to people without a background check. Willingness to walk in and fill out some paperwork and wait 7-14 days. Do you think anyone had the balls to do it? out of 120k guns sold? probably. All those scary black rifles and handguns into the hands of god knows who (and the MSP will not know for another 100 days).

    Guess what, nothing happened. No-thing.

    The worst thing you can possibly do is show the govt how irrelevant it is.

  17. This is why the Coburn amendment is soooo much better than M-T. Private sales stay private and no mandatory records. It would open up the NICS to private sales by allowing buyers to background check themselves and sellers to verify it. In my book it is the best thing that has been proposed. Of course, the best thing would be no NICS checks at all, since really if a person is too dangerous to have a gun they are too dangerous to walk the streets free.

    • “no NICS checks at all, since really if a person is too dangerous to have a gun they are too dangerous to walk the streets free”

      This.^ If you have a list of people so dangerous that they only require the catalyst of a firearm to wreak havoc and mayhem, maybe you might want to do something with those people…you know, if you really cared for the children. More than implies that our prison/justice system is a farce and compleltly incapable of rehabilitating anyone.

  18. No “reasonable person” has a problem with background checks… until they finally realize that criminals can get illegals guns just as easily as illegal drugs. In fact, gun trafficking is a secondary market for drug dealers… when are we truly going to take control and stop the carnage? And, BTW, universal background checks are NOT the answer.

  19. Robert, you woefully misstated this to make your point. Sure, the vast majority of guns used in crimes are stolen, but they are not used by the person who stole them in most cases. Instead, the thief sells them to another individual who then uses them for a robbery rape or murder.
    See what that implies? If those criminals would have done a back ground check, then the police very well might have caught the thief or the perp. Instead, we have another firearm sold with no back ground check or verification used in a crime. A gun may have seven hundred owners before it is used in a crime, and 698 of those are irrelevant. its the last two, the criminal and the schmuck he got it from that matter.
    Robert, Robert Robert, how could you be so easily misled?

    • “If those criminals would have done a back ground check, then the police very well might have caught the thief or the perp.”

      Jeremy, can this comment actually be serious? Or did you just forget to ad /sarc at the end?

      Nobody with any smidgen of common sense, or at the very least a moderate grasp on reality, could believe that a criminal (who, let me repeat for the umpteenth time on this blog, by definition does not and has no intention of ever following a law), would submit this transaction to a background check just because some new law said it is required. that is NEVER going to happen.

      And that is entirely disregarding the FACT that the whole concept of government mandated background checks is a violation of our natural, civil and Constitutionally protected Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

      • Cliff, my point exactly. If criminals would just obey the law, things would be sooooo much easier.

        BTW, names in red link to a website or facebook page etc, so you can figger out if the person is a lefty, troll, or sarcastic as all hell.

  20. Another problem with background checks is that many, if not most, of the people who should be on the prohibited list are not. Although they misbehave in ways that should result in criminal conviction or commitment to a psychiatric hospital, they are never prosecuted or committed or the information is not entered into the NICS database.

    • This is THE premier gun blog in America, possibly in the entire world.

      WHY is it so difficult to get this concept across? “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

      If we believe that this Amendment means EXACTLY what it says, then who, please tell me, is authorized to compile that list of “prohibited” persons who are not to be allowed to exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to Keep and Bear Arms?

      Unless and until we stand up and proclaim this loudly every chance we get we POTG will die the “death of a thousand cuts”.

      • Cliff, persons who are guilty of felonies should be stripped of their constitutional rights, in some cases permanently. I personally support the idea of a background check system, but the one we have now stinks to high heaven. Perhaps a solution would be that our state issues ID, whether a drivers livense, or other card, contain a check box for rights revocated, but criminals would still find a way ro rhwart that system.
        Any person selling a firearm to a stranger should hesitate and wonder if the person they are selling to might be a well dressed kindly spoken criminal and con artist.
        One way to fix our present system would be to destroy all 4473s after five years, require the ATF to have a signed search warrant to access them, said warrant to state clearly the names of persons to be disclosed, the type of weapons to be disclosed, and hte range of dates to be disclosed, and unless all three conditions are met, nothing would be disclosed, and require the termination by gunfire of any agent found to have violated that criteria.
        I’d like to have a way to check. Frankly, if their voter ID card said they are a dem, I wouldn’t sell them a corkgun.

        • Jeremy, There is only ONE possible response to your assertion:

          “…persons who are guilty of felonies should be stripped of their constitutional rights…”

          The rights enumerated and enshrined in the first ten amendments, The Bill of Rights, are natural, civil and Constitutionally PROTECTED rights. They are NOT Constitutional Rights, in that they belong to us as a matter of right, not because the Constitution gives them to us. That being the case I can think of no reasonable or moral way of allowing any level of government ANY authority to decide when, where, if, how much, and by whom those rights may be exercised. If you believe that persons [found] guilty of felonies should be stripped of their [natural, civil and Constitutionally protected] rights then you open the door wide for the federal and any other government agency to redefine “felony” until they have successfully eliminated as many of our “rights” as they so desire.

          For example: Will it be considered a felony to defy or ignore any part of the Obamacare/Affordable Health Care Act? Do we even know if any of the myriad new agencies created by Obamacare will have the ability to write regulations making the violation of their little part of this unreadable and unintelligible legislation a felony? The IRS is going to be tasked with collecting the “tax” you are now mandated to pay. If you do not pay it will you now be a felon and have your “constitutional rights” stripped away forever, including your right to keep and bear arms?

          “…shall not be infringed.” is not negotiable.

        • Clif, try the Declaration of Independence for starters. “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. that among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Well, gosh dang! We don’t want to terample on GOD given rights, so lets not incarcerate anyone! Lets abolish the death penalty, because life is a GOD given right, and rapists enjoy sadistically mollesting small children, they are only trying to be happy.
          The real problem is not Government, its that WE THE PEOPLE are failing to do our duty and control it as the Constitution intended.
          If we can take a criminals life for their crimes, we can strip them of every other right. That includes the right to keep and bear arms. I don’t have a problem with suspending a crooks rights if done correctly. We should set a time limit for removal of those rights though. In my mind that should be x2 the time they were sentened to jail for, or the max sentence they could receive. If Charles Manson ever gets parole, I don’t want him to ever have a gun. People who choose to live outside the constitution should be made to forfeit those rights. That included Barry, Eric the red, and a hand full of congress critters.

  21. “One more wrinkle: some states maintain a registry of all private firearms sales (e.g., Connecticut, New York and New Jersey)”

    This is not true. Private firearms sales are not recorded by New York. Perhaps they keep track of FFL transfers, but not of private transfers.

  22. I would like to add my experience regarding the Background check system.
    I am 56 years old & never once had an interest in firearms until about 2 years ago when I moved to Montana.
    I’m disabled & take a lot of Schedule II Pain medication. I had two attempted break-ins by drug abusers who found out my medications. A friend took me to the store to buy a handgun so I could defend myself if it happened again. I’ve never been in trouble with the law so I had no worries about filing the Background check paperwork. I filled it out only to be told I had been denied. I couldn’t understand why so I filed a petition to find out the reason. When I got my answer, it became even more baffling !
    Apparently, back in 1980 the local police department received an anonymous phone tip, saying I destroyed Government property. This was the first I had ever heard of it. I called the prosecutor in that county to ask about it. He said the police received this anon tip, followed it up only to find I had nothing to do with any sort of crime. They never spoke to me, I was never charged or found guilty of a crime.
    Never the less, this anon tip was logged & filed away. For over 30+ years I was denied my Second Amendment Rights & I had no idea ! In fact, even under thee criteria issued by the FBI, there was NO reason to deny me. In the end, I was able to get the Prosecuting Attorney to write a letter to the FBI, explaining the situation & he also expunged any reference to the incident. After about 6 months, I finally received a overturn appeal letter and the appeal certificate. I immediately went to my local Sheriff’s office and applied for a Conceal/Carry Permit, which was granted without incident.
    After all this time, I returned to the store and they told me they still refuse to sell me the handgun.
    I went to another store, showed them my Conceal/Carry permit and walked out with my handgun within 15 minutes.
    SO, the moral of this long story is. Even if you have NO intention of buying a firearm, I suggest EVERYONE go to a Gun Store & fill out the Form. You never know what rights you may have lost, without your ever doing anything wrong. It’s just not right.
    I eventually pieced together what prompted this whole matter. Back in 1980, I called the police to report my next door neighbor for Child Abuse. I’m not talking about spanking but, throwing the 6 year old boy down 2 flights of stairs, starving him, leaving him tied up to the back porch while the parents were at work, running a Child Daycare center ! In retribution, they made the anonymous tip.

    One additional thing you may be interested to hear. About one year later I had a woman drug abuser break in to my home, wielding a baseball bat and demanding I give her all my prescriptions AND from that point forward I would fill my prescriptions then give them to her so she can sell them. I ran in to my bedroom and got my handgun. When I returned, she had run out the door. She even had the nerve to call the police and tell them I pointed a gun in her face when she came to visit. They showed up & I explained the deal. Showed them my CCW and my prescriptions. They said I had every right to do what I did to protect myself & left. Unfortunately, when my Landlord found out about this incident. I was evicted !
    Apparently there is a Law where a landlord can evict and/or refuse to rent to anyone who owns a firearm.
    If they are Anti-Gun, they can invoke their beliefs on their tenants too. SO, all of you who rent your dwelling, you might want to find out how your landlord views the ownership of a Firearm.

  23. I’m trying to find out why someone I know landed up in jail. I’m sure the story she gave me was not the truth. I know where she lives but not the name of the street to type it into the information asked for much less her email address. I have not had a computer in over 2 years much less communicated with her by email. So how do I do this???? Help from anyone would be greatfully appreciated. Carolyn

  24. Obviously the majority of people never learn from history. In Germany after World War I the Weimar republic thought that it would be a good idea to have everyone register their firearms or penalties would follow. The people who got the law passed were however worried that such a registry ( as with the ATF) could fall in the wrong hands ( despotic politician/dictator) and wanted to make sure the list was going to be kept in a safe place lest it fell in the wrong hands.
    And in the wrong hands it did fall. The Nazis when they came to power used the list to confiscate the firearms of all Jews, Pols, Gypsies or any other groups or individuals considered to be undesirable by them. Some politicians right now or in the future will be vying to get their hands on this registry (from the ATF) created when you pass you back ground check and get your firearms as they don’t you to be able to defend yourself when they send the troops after us and enable them to their sordid deeds.

  25. Another problem with state, local, or federal government records of firearm or concealed-carry-permits is that their databases can be hacked (like the 2015 hacks of the IRS or the Office of Personnel Management). And anti-gun government employees can leak the records (as happened in 2012 when NY concealed-carry-permit holders were leaked to the liberal “news” media, which then published an interactive map to the permit-holders’ houses). Such hacks and/or leaks expose law-abiding gun-owners to a higher risk of home-robbery, vandalism, job-discrimination, community-shunning, and physical harm.

  26. I for one support universal background checks.
    I also support not only mandatory firearm safety training but also safe storage laws.
    Further, I support a federal gun registry coupled with a federal firearm license that can be revoked without delay for crimes committed.
    Assault weapon and high capacity magazine bans are needed badly in this country.
    Periodic unannounced police checks on gun owner in regards of safe storage should be daily business!
    I know that many of you need firearms to make up for your shortcomings with your manhood, don’t like changes to the current situation but changes are coming.
    Like it or not!

Comments are closed.