Is “Universal Background Checks” Legislation Dying Out?

One of the things about this debate about “universal background checks” is that no one within the elected “representative” community is saying that this is about handguns: it seems to be aimed at all gun purchases and transfers. And, to be honest, I personally have no problem with a quick background check on all gun purchases. Why are handguns different from a rifle that could fire accurately up to several hundred yards away? Anyhow, what Senators, mostly Democrats, are pushing may be dying out

(Washington Times) Senators from both parties signaled Sunday that universal background checks could be the next gun measure to get shoved toward the legislative scrap heap or significantly watered down.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, whose bill to expand background checks to cover virtually all gun transactions, including private sales, has cleared the Judiciary Committee, said he is nevertheless hunting for a compromise on the issue.

If he’s hunting for a compromise it means his legislation is too extreme. Wasn’t this legislation supposed to be the easy one? Simply expand background checks to all guns. What is ChuckE putting in his bill that could make it so difficult?

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said that out of about 80,000 people who failed background checks last year, just 66 were prosecuted.

“Why in the world would you expand that system if you’re not enforcing the law that exists today to include private transfers?” Mr. Graham said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “So I think that legislation is going nowhere. But I would like to have a robust debate about improving the system to make sure that people who are mentally ill do not get a gun to begin with. And there’s a lot we could do in a bipartisan fashion.”

Wait, the government is not following the law yet is complaining about bad people getting guns? Raise your hands if you’re surprised by governmental incompetence.

Lawmakers are looking for a way to extend checks to almost all transactions without creating a record-keeping system that gun rights supporters fear could turn into a gun registry.

Well, what of the way records are kept for handguns? There has been no muss or fuss about that system. Why not expand it? Certainly because Democrats (and some Republicans) want a massive data base on Americans with guns. They aren’t concerned with all the issues involved with targeting people with mental health issues, violating their privacy, stigmatizing them, and denying them their Constitutional Right to own a gun while also violating their 4th and 5th Amendment rights.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

5 Responses to “Is “Universal Background Checks” Legislation Dying Out?”

  1. VolDOg says:

    Well, what of the way records are kept for handguns?

    I don’t think current law allows NICS background records to be maintained for ANY guns, much less handguns

  2. gumball_brains says:

    True VolDog. There is no reason to keep them unless the means is nefarious.

    I personally have no problem with a quick background check on all gun purchases.

    How would you do that Teach? How would you enforce a law that would make it a felony if you failed to get an FFL ($25-$50 fee) background check when you sold your old .22LR to your cousin? Don’t forget, that is the FFL check, then add on the cost of doing a transfer through the FFL. That’s another $25-$50.

    Would people be willing to fork over $25-$50 for every gun purchase they make? Would there be a background check on just the buyer? Why not the seller too? is he legally allowed to own the gun that he is trying to sell you? Is that gun now illegal? Would you then be in trouble with the law for purchasing, owning, possessing an illegal firearm?

    Who would be responsible for policing said FFL transactions?

    Say you sell your .22LR to your second cousin. You didn’t know that he had a felony conviction a while back. You and he and your gun go to an FFL dealer to arrange a background check and transfer. The background check shows you clean but your second cousin turns up RED. WHo now is the enforcer of the law? Will the FFL be the one to call it in and ruin his business since he’s going to be known as a rat? Will you the seller?

    What if you go ahead and sell it to him knowing that he is your second cousin and you like him for some reason. Who enforces that felony?

    How do you create a law that stops back-alley business? How do you license back-alley business? When you FORCE business to go back-alley, how effective is the law?

  3. john says:

    hand guns are different because they kill FAR more people. Did’t you know that ?

  4. gumball_brains says:

    wrong again john, blunt instruments far more people.

  5. gitarcarver says:

    So jphn, if handguns kil more people, then why is the focus on long guns?

    Once again, we see the “logic” of liberals.