THE TRUTH ABOUT SO-CALLED "UNIVERSAL" BACKGROUND CHECK LEGISLATION H.R. 8 AND S. 42

[Elderberry]

NRA-ILA

As proposed, H.R. 8 and S. 42 would forbid a person from transferring a firearm to another person unless facilitated through a licensed firearms dealer.  Both parties to the transfer must appear jointly at a willing dealer, who must conduct a background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and comply with all state and federal requirements as though he were selling or transferring a firearm out of his own inventory. 

While proponents of the bills often refer to it as a background check on sales of firearms, the true effect of H.R. 8 or S. 42 would be criminalizing otherwise lawful conduct with firearms. The overbroad nature of the proposed legislation would criminalize many transfers that take place as part of hunting, recreational shooting, and even self-defense.

While some differences between H.R. 8 and S. 42 do exist, their overall effect on law-abiding Americans would be the same.

H.R. 8 and S. 42 language states that participation by dealers in private party transfers would be voluntary. Because of the legal conflict and uncertainty, many dealers might refuse to run these checks. Those dealers that are willing, must agree to assume the risk and uncertainty and are likely to demand costly fees for the service.  The language states that the dealer may charge a reasonable fee, but it does not cap or otherwise limit the dealer's discretion in this regard.

Even transfers that do not result in a change of ownership would presumptively have to go through H.R. 8/S. 42 formalities. Thus, dealers would potentially have multiple records of the same firearm changing hands again-and-again, essentially creating a paper trail of everybody who handled the firearm.  The record-keeping burdens on the dealer would be considerable, and the records generated could form the basis for a later registry not just of those who own firearms, but those who merely took possession of one, for any purpose or length of time.

As an advisor to the Obama administration wrote, the effectiveness of a universal background regime "depends on … requiring gun registration…;" this bill weakens protections against using NICS checks to create a registry and sets the stage for future firearm registration requirements.

More: https://www.nraila.org/campaigns/2019/2019-universal-background-check-legislation/about-s-42-and-hr-8/

[txradioguy]

NRA-ILA

As proposed, H.R. 8 and S. 42 would forbid a person from transferring a firearm to another person unless facilitated through a licensed firearms dealer.  Both parties to the transfer must appear jointly at a willing dealer, who must conduct a background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and comply with all state and federal requirements as though he were selling or transferring a firearm out of his own inventory. 

While proponents of the bills often refer to it as a background check on sales of firearms, the true effect of H.R. 8 or S. 42 would be criminalizing otherwise lawful conduct with firearms. The overbroad nature of the proposed legislation would criminalize many transfers that take place as part of hunting, recreational shooting, and even self-defense.

While some differences between H.R. 8 and S. 42 do exist, their overall effect on law-abiding Americans would be the same.

H.R. 8 and S. 42 language states that participation by dealers in private party transfers would be voluntary. Because of the legal conflict and uncertainty, many dealers might refuse to run these checks. Those dealers that are willing, must agree to assume the risk and uncertainty and are likely to demand costly fees for the service.  The language states that the dealer may charge a reasonable fee, but it does not cap or otherwise limit the dealer's discretion in this regard.

Even transfers that do not result in a change of ownership would presumptively have to go through H.R. 8/S. 42 formalities. Thus, dealers would potentially have multiple records of the same firearm changing hands again-and-again, essentially creating a paper trail of everybody who handled the firearm.  The record-keeping burdens on the dealer would be considerable, and the records generated could form the basis for a later registry not just of those who own firearms, but those who merely took possession of one, for any purpose or length of time.

As an advisor to the Obama administration wrote, the effectiveness of a universal background regime "depends on … requiring gun registration…;" this bill weakens protections against using NICS checks to create a registry and sets the stage for future firearm registration requirements.

More: https://www.nraila.org/campaigns/2019/2019-universal-background-check-legislation/about-s-42-and-hr-8/

Doesn't matter how many different way the Progressives try to spin it...everything they do is with one goal in mind...confiscation of all legally owned guns in this country.  And like with everything else they do...they'll chip away at the edges until they get what they want.

[Jazzhead]

I agree conceptually with the "universal" background check legislation,  but believe it should be limited to transfers of ownership.   Unless and until there is a transfer of ownership,  the owner of the firearm should be legally responsible for harm done by those using the firearm while in his/her ownership.   There's no need to require this law to apply to lending a gun to a friend a the gun range,  so long as it's clear that if the friend causes damage with the firearm,  the owner will be responsible.   

The foregoing principle would be enhanced by registration - a process whereby ownership of a firearm is established and periodically renewed. 

[txradioguy]

I agree conceptually with the "universal" background check legislation,  but believe it should be limited to transfers of ownership.   Unless and until there is a transfer of ownership,  the owner of the firearm should be legally responsible for harm done by those using the firearm while in his/her ownership.   There's no need to require this law to apply to lending a gun to a friend a the gun range,  so long as it's clear that if the friend causes damage with the firearm,  the owner will be responsible.   

The foregoing principle would be enhanced by registration - a process whereby ownership of a firearm is established and periodically renewed.

Where is any of that allowed for in the Constitution?

And even if it was legal (which it's not) there is no way universial background checks can be done without a massive data base of every gun owner in the country being created.  And if you think that's a good idea for the federal government to have something like that at their disposal I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona I'd like to sell you.

[thackney]

I agree conceptually with the "universal" background check legislation,  but believe it should be limited to transfers of ownership.   Unless and until there is a transfer of ownership,  the owner of the firearm should be legally responsible for harm done by those using the firearm while in his/her ownership.   There's no need to require this law to apply to lending a gun to a friend a the gun range,  so long as it's clear that if the friend causes damage with the firearm,  the owner will be responsible.   

The foregoing principle would be enhanced by registration - a process whereby ownership of a firearm is established and periodically renewed.

I will always vote against anyone supporting this.  Always and forever.

[Jazzhead]

Where is any of that allowed for in the Constitution?

Where is any of that  forbidden in the Constitution?    Even assuming an individual RKBA,  that doesn't implicate regulations addressing transfers of ownership.   

[Jazzhead]

I will always vote against anyone supporting this.  Always and forever.

Better registration in conjunction with legislation codifying the individual RKBA,  than confiscation like what's soon going to happen in New Zealand. 

Taking an extreme position doesn't help protect the RKBA.   The hill to die on, it seems to me,  is confiscation of entire classes of commonly used firearms,  not reasonable registration of ownership of such firearms.   

[thackney]

Better registration in conjunction with legislation codifying the individual RKBA,  than confiscation like what's soon going to happen in New Zealand. 

Taking an extreme position doesn't help protect the RKBA.   The hill to die on, it seems to me,  is confiscation of entire classes of commonly used firearms,  not reasonable registration of ownership of such firearms.

Accepting a death of a thousand cuts is not acceptable.

I will always vote against this and everyone supporting it. 

[txradioguy]

Where is any of that  forbidden in the Constitution?    Even assuming an individual RKBA,  that doesn't implicate regulations addressing transfers of ownership.

Yes it does.  IT's very clear in the last few words of the 2nd Amendment.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There are no exceptions for universal background checks...transfers of ownership...loaning a firearm to a friend to go hunting or to practice shooting.  Neither are their exceptions in the 2nd Amendment that makes it ok to close the mythical "gunshow loophole" either.

The 2nd Amendment is very clear on this issue.

[XenaLee]

Accepting a death of a thousand cuts is not acceptable.

I will always vote against this and everyone supporting it.

 

[Jazzhead]

Yes it does.  IT's very clear in the last few words of the 2nd Amendment.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There are no exceptions for universal background checks...transfers of ownership...loaning a firearm to a friend to go hunting or to practice shooting.  Neither are their exceptions in the 2nd Amendment that makes it ok to close the mythical "gunshow loophole" either.

The 2nd Amendment is very clear on this issue.

No it's not.   But it's no skin off of my nose if you don't choose to believe me.   

[thackney]

Yes it does.  IT's very clear in the last few words of the 2nd Amendment.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There are no exceptions for universal background checks...transfers of ownership...loaning a firearm to a friend to go hunting or to practice shooting.  Neither are their exceptions in the 2nd Amendment that makes it ok to close the mythical "gunshow loophole" either.

The 2nd Amendment is very clear on this issue.

It is in the same part that says right of free speech is only after you get approval from the government for your permit, after they perform a background check.

[txradioguy]

No it's not.   But it's no skin off of my nose if you don't choose to believe me.

I choose not to believe you because you're ignorant about that which you speak.

[Smokin Joe]

Where is any of that  forbidden in the Constitution?    Even assuming an individual RKBA,  that doesn't implicate regulations addressing transfers of ownership.

It's right at the end. "...shall not be infringed."