While banning guns and magazines is being actively promoted by the anti-gunners (as evidenced by introduction of Sen. Feinstein’s S. 150), the criminalization of private firearm transfers is the centerpiece of their anti-Second Amendment efforts. This is part of a strategy to chip away at our Second Amendment rights under the guise of being “reasonable.” But if you understand exactly what the anti-gunners are really talking about, you’ll understand that the restrictions they’re proposing are anything but reasonable. While we don’t know the final form this legislation will take, these checks no doubt would require background checks for firearm transfers between lifelong friends, and maybe even between family members. It would also be a step toward national gun registration. As we mentioned in an article last week, “universal” background checks are background checks on EVERY transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, and loan of a firearm between any and all individuals, minus whatever exceptions our opponents will stand for.
Does anyone really think that these checks will be conducted between drug dealers on a Chicago street corner or gang members in an L.A. alley? Of course not. You know that’s ridiculous and so do the anti-gun politicians, but they don’t care. And where and how would these personal checks be done? Would you and your friend, or grandson, or mother have to drive to some government office at the state capital? Or travel several hours to the government-approved, federally licensed dealer in another part of your state? What happens when the instant check system isn’t functioning? How will the government monitor and enforce these checks?
Obviously, this proposal raises more questions than it answers. Furthermore, “universal” background checks are unnecessary. It is already a federal felony to be engaged in the business of buying and selling firearms without having a federal dealer’s license. It is already a crime for a federally licensed dealer to sell a gun without doing a background check–that’s all dealers, everywhere, whether at retail stores or gun shows.
NRA does NOT support “universal” background checks and will continue to oppose, “universal” background checks and registration schemes. We do believe that records of those who are prohibited by law from purchasing firearms (including those whose mental health history puts them in this category) ought to be included in the federal instant check system.
Please continue to contact your U.S. Senators and tell them to oppose “universal” background check legislation AND S. 150, Sen. Feinstein’s gun and magazine ban. To identify and contact your elected officials in Washington, D.C., use the “Write Your Reps” feature at www.NRAILA.org, or you can reach your member of Congress by phone at 202-224-3121.
Second amendment uses the word, “Regulated” – current regulations are obviously insufficient. More regulation is needed to make the country a safer place. Guns on Chicago streets are sold illegally – this is obvious from every angle of research. The laws and enforcement of current laws are only two tools of the many that must be used to control gun violence. If the ‘pro-gun’ lobby does not accept reasonable positions then eventually additional erosion of proper gun rights will occur. Logic, not emotion is the path forward.
To say that current regulations are insufficent is like saying America just needs a little more poison to get well. Current regulations such as gun-free zones are not reasonalbe and don’t work. No more poison for me.
@RanWiz: Your statement about the word, “Regulated,” is deceptive. Let’s be clear about this. The word “regulated” is used in relation to a well regulated Militia, NOT in regard to regulation of arms: “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.”
Regulations of arms is an infringement.
Notice it does not say, “… the right of the army to keep and bear arms.” It says, “… the right of the PEOPLE…” [emphasis added] It is obvious from this that the word Militia does not refer to the army, but to the armed populace that are to be trained and at the ready.
Regulating the arms of law-abiding citizens is an infringement. And we, the People, have been putting up with infringements of our 2nd Amendment-enumerated rights for far too long.
Furthermore, your statement, “If the ‘pro-gun’ lobby does not accept reasonable positions then eventually additional erosion of proper gun rights will occur,” is ludicrous. Accepting “reasonable positions” is THE VERY THING that is allowing further erosion of the rights of the people.
Second amendment uses the word, “Regulated” – current regulations are obviously insufficient. More regulation is needed to make the country a safer place. Guns on Chicago streets are sold illegally – this is obvious from every angle of research. The laws and enforcement of current laws are only two tools of the many that must be used to control gun violence. If the ‘pro-gun’ lobby does not accept reasonable positions then eventually additional erosion of proper gun rights will occur. Logic, not emotion is the path forward.
To say that current regulations are insufficent is like saying America just needs a little more poison to get well. Current regulations such as gun-free zones are not reasonalbe and don’t work. No more poison for me.
@RanWiz: Your statement about the word, “Regulated,” is deceptive. Let’s be clear about this. The word “regulated” is used in relation to a well regulated Militia, NOT in regard to regulation of arms: “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.”
Regulations of arms is an infringement.
Notice it does not say, “… the right of the army to keep and bear arms.” It says, “… the right of the PEOPLE…” [emphasis added] It is obvious from this that the word Militia does not refer to the army, but to the armed populace that are to be trained and at the ready.
Regulating the arms of law-abiding citizens is an infringement. And we, the People, have been putting up with infringements of our 2nd Amendment-enumerated rights for far too long.
Furthermore, your statement, “If the ‘pro-gun’ lobby does not accept reasonable positions then eventually additional erosion of proper gun rights will occur,” is ludicrous. Accepting “reasonable positions” is THE VERY THING that is allowing further erosion of the rights of the people.