Background Check Bill Marks Gun Control as a Priority for House Democrats

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/politics/house-democrats-gun-control.html

They know it won't pass the senate - why bother?
They know Trump won't sign it - why bother?
They know it cannot be enforced without universal registration - why bother?
Oh... Wait...

 

More political posturing but at least they are signalling they will be authoritarians if they gain complete power.

 

Virtue signaling so that they can use it in the next election cycle.

 

You mean like...
"Oh look! We're so serious about placing useless restrictions on the rights of the law abiding, we passed a bill that went nowhere!!!"

 

Trump will sign it. All they have to do is append it to a $5 billion wall fund..........

 

How is background checking individuals wishing to purchase firearms authoritarian? It is not banning guns - as you all think the left wants. It is implementing a measure that will, hopefully, provide more peace of mind for those fearing gun violence. Oh, I know, the bad guys will get guns any way they can, but aren't you happy to know that those who shouldn't have guns may have a more difficult time buying them?

 

Remember when the law was passed by Congress and signed by Clinton trying to control "decency" on the Internet? Remember when the first Federal Judge the law was presented to (about five minutes or so after it passed) reminded everyone involved (all of whom had known it all along) that the First Amendment nullified such idiocy?
Legislators posture for vocal constituencies.

 

You're walking down the street. A police officer, without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, stops you. demands your ID, detains you while he checks to see of you have any outstanding warrants, and, assuming you do not, lets you go.
Background checks violate your rights in the exact same way.

 

Such a political move would likely qualify as "interesting" to witness, and see what comes about from such a maneuver. If supposedly "universal" background checks are truly of such importance to those that align with the liberal democrat party, what other supposedly hard stances might they be willing to surrender in the name of passing such?

 

Ummm not quite. In your example, a person is merely walking down the street. In the background check example, a person is looking to purchase a firearm. The first is a background check for no reason - the second is a background check in response to a request for firearms.

 

There are locations in the united states that do not have federally licensed firearms dealers close at hand, meaning travel outside of the location of residence is necessary in order to comply with the law, even if the travel is fifty miles. Fifty miles of time involved with traveling, expenses such as the fuel used for the travel, time that may need to be taken off of work, the fee for the background check, however much that may be, and who knows what other expenses are entailed, all in the name of complying with an unenforceable legal requirement.

 

i dont see how any honest, law-abiding American could oppose background checks to buy a gun

 

Well, first the bill isn't going to pass. Second, the virtue signalling is more like "We sponsored a bill that went nowhere because the evil Republicans (at the behest of the malicious NRA) blocked it."

 

Both are an example of a restraint on an exercise of your rights by the state, absent reasonable suspicion or probable cause, exacted on the premise you might be breaking the law.
If one violates your rights, so does the other.

 

Why should I have to do a background check to transfer a family heirloom gun to my law-abiding son? That is just authoritarian.

 

fine, exempt children, spouses, parents, siblings.

 

They could oppose the matter by simply understanding the matter will ultimately serve to create more problems than it will solve.

 

even one gun being sold privately, to a criminal, is one too many.

background checks make sense.

 

Never mind the fact the law is unenforceable, as the state cannot prove the transfer took place after the law took effect.

 

And this proposal will not stop such from occurring. Ultimately it will not even slow things down. If anything it will simply lead to an increase in the number of reports of firearms being stolen, when in truth they were sold with a disregard for what the legislation may say.

Except for when they cannot be enforced, which this proposal cannot. Without a method to insure enforcement, it is nothing more than a theoretical concept of thought rather than an actual thing.

 

How would you enforce a father getting a background check to give a gun to his niece or nephew for a present? How would you enforce a husband getting a background check for his wife if he leaves her in the house for more than x number of days (yes, that was part of the proposal)?

 

most law-abiding gun owners would comply with UBC.

why? cause most law-abiding gun owners know that background checks are a good thing. Its just a few extremists who oppose them.

 

How will the requirement be enforced? Explain such. Detail the process that would be put in place, to make sure the requirement is not being ignored on the basis of being unenforceable, with an exceedingly low chance of anyone ever actually being caught for noncompliance.

 

not supposed to regulate 'peace of mind'... who's peace of mind becomes an issue...

all this bill would do is regulate guns already registered, wont do sqwat for illegal possession by criminals...

 

Honest and sincere question...do you really think that 50 miles is too far to travel to ensure responsible gun ownership? What do car owners - living in the same area - do when they have to register their cars and there is an office 50 miles away?

It will be a check on new gun owners and the purchase of new guns by already gun owners. Why - honestly - is that such a big deal? It wasn't long ago that all us lefties were accused of wanting to take away your guns and ban future purchases. So this is a compromise...isn't that acceptable?

 

So if the gun will be in the uncle/husband/father's name, he will be responsible if that gun was used in a crime. Why is that a problem? What we are looking at is 'responsible gun ownership'.