JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.

Would you support "universal background checks"?

  • YES

    Votes: 4 2.8%
  • YES, but only with certain exemptions/conditions

    Votes: 13 9.2%
  • Not Sure

    Votes: 16 11.3%
  • No

    Votes: 109 76.8%

  • Total voters
    142
  • Poll closed .
Really!? The same way done now. Just like they don't keep any info now. "There is not enough computer space to store all that text data". LOL Right... ;)
.
Ya kind of skipped over the rest of my post, didn't you? None of what I posted is ever going to happen, given the liberal climate. Ergo, universal background checks is not something to support.
 
No. The federal government should only be in charge of protecting our nation from an outward perspective. (Create a standing army when required)

States should govern & tax & maintain themselves within the framework of the constitution.

More restrictions or regulations on guns is not needed.

There are thousands of safety issues that would provide more benefit to Americans than "The Gun Debate"
 
Ya kind of skipped over the rest of my post, didn't you? None of what I posted is ever going to happen, given the liberal climate. Ergo, universal background checks is not something to support.
I understand what you posted. I was referring to the way things are currently done now and would be then too, no matter what "they" said.
 
Actually, that's not accurate. I posted this poll on about a half-dozen sites and there are some 'YES' votes showing up, including one right here. Some gun people vote for Obama, support background checks, yada yada...

I don't doubt some people say -foolishly and idealistic in my opinion - "yes" the same way they may have justified voting for "0" believing he was a Leader who could unite us.
We've been down the path on this question several times. Maybe it's good to refresh memories or maybe we think if we ask the same question a 100 times different answers will come up.

Problem:
(1) If the WA State pistol registry is illegal under State or Federal (doubt that) Constitution, sue the State.
Why would anyone in this State believe you could trust Kline, Inslee or any other Lib with their track record is beyond me.

(2) NICS already can't keep up, especially on weekends, and this system would bury it further.

(3) Some have offered the State should create a background check system, but who would pay for it? Us is the answer.

(4) Regardless of State law, ATF will require the 4473 to be filled out and won't allow its surrender.
Who comes in and copies those occasionally and keeps the books when the FFL goes out of business? The ATF.

(5) If the State requires it's own form, as it does now on pistols, someone thinks they won't now on rifles?

(6) The last proposal was a $20 fee, but I don't know of any of the 4 dealers I work with that do it for less then $40.
Plus once fees get started does anyone believe the Sate won't increase them rapidly?
I believe New York is now $125 for each gun purchase,

(7) Does anyone believe the Police/Sheriff Departments will do this for free or even with a fee?
If they are forced, how slow do you think they will process applications? Maybe like CPL appointments today?

(8) Once the State has involvement how long do you think it will be before they find some way to apply sales tax?
I know tax was paid when it was first purchased, but this State loves to tax.

(9) Once you ask the State to approve a purchase, a record has been created, an infrastructure designed. Registration is just a short jump away.
Name a State where registration of guns (or a Country) hasn't lead to further restrictions and/or confiscation. There aren't any!!!!

(10) So now you would need State approval to sell or trade guns with your hunting buddy of 20 years, or within your Family?
I know they say they could make an exception, but that could be voted out real quick.

(11) They say exemptions for CPL holders. Baloney, see #10 above. It wouldn't last.

(12) Some suggested, well if we could just call in via the phone? Not and not what the Liberals will ever support.
Besides needing an infrastructure to manage the database and answer calls, it would require tax money to support.
Again, you supply your name, buyers name and social security numbers along with maybe serial numbers (to validate gun not stolen) you have a registry.

It's a dumb, criminal, un-Constitutional plan that Liberals will keep pushing and wimps – like Gottlieb – will praise in an effort to appease the enemies of the 2nd Amendment.

Butch
 
K-bear
There's no evidence I've seen that Gottlieb ever tried to "appease" any gun grabber. They hate the guy. This time he put them rather on the spot by surprising them with a list of 'conditions' as it were, for the gun community to entertain their latest in a long line of "we want this, so bend over" proposals.

For the first time I can recall, somebody from the gun side said, "Oh, you want this? Well, we want this..and this...and this, and we want this, too."

I don't believe they were ready for it. Now, instead of the gun people being portrayed as a bunch of stiff necked jerks, the anti-gunners now have to explain why THEY were unwilling to bring something of substance...anything...to the table.


Frankly, part of me finds that rather amusing.
 
I am opposed to any record keeping that would come from universal background checks. Some states already have private party sales background checks that are done either at a dealer or local LE office. Many people that will sell or buy privately will check in state DL status and require the buyer to have CHL to purchase. Many require gun to go through local FFL for proper background and transfer. I personally run a background on any firearm I purchase and require a BOS every time to prove ownership. Personal responsibility and common sense as a seller or buyer is the main component.

NO
 
My issue is not trying to say Gottlieb doesn't believe in the 2nd Amendment. I strongly believe he does.

My "issue" is his apparent belief Gun Owners need to bring anything to the table. Why should we?

A Right is a Right. Just because someone - like the Left - say we don't agree with the Right and you need to compromise on something doesn't, to me, make that a good idea. There is nothing on a Right which requires "compromise". Either it "is" a Right or it "is not". Pretty simple.

Like I said if WA State's registry is a violation of our State constitution, sue the State. Don't set the precedent of leading the Left to believe we will deal with them and infer a compromise of our Right.

They're wrong. No negotiation. Want to fix violence? Prosecute criminal activity - get the Left to compromise on that (which they won't do). Quit backing down!
 
My issue is not trying to say Gottlieb doesn't believe in the 2nd Amendment. I strongly believe he does.

My "issue" is his apparent belief Gun Owners need to bring anything to the table. Why should we?

A Right is a Right. Just because someone - like the Left - say we don't agree with the Right and you need to compromise on something doesn't, to me, make that a good idea. There is nothing on a Right which requires "compromise". Either it "is" a Right or it "is not". Pretty simple.

Like I said if WA State's registry is a violation of our State constitution, sue the State. Don't set the precedent of leading the Left to believe we will deal with them and infer a compromise of our Right.

They're wrong. No negotiation. Want to fix violence? Prosecute criminal activity - get the Left to compromise on that (which they won't do). Quit backing down!

It's a perception issue and having a hand in crafting legislation. The antis are painting us as unwilling to compromise or discuss any solution to reducing gun violence despite not having any solution themselves. Offering to negotiate, eliminates their ability to try to hammer out plans in a vacuum without gun owners input. That and saying we're not willing to have a discussion.
 
It's a perception issue and having a hand in crafting legislation. The antis are painting us as unwilling to compromise or discuss any solution to reducing gun violence despite not having any solution themselves. Offering to negotiate, eliminates their ability to try to hammer out plans in a vacuum without gun owners input. That and saying we're not willing to have a discussion.

That's might make sense in some situations where two parties are negotiating in good faith. On gun control we seem to always be on the defensive instead of asserting a Right. What we offered was a none deal with key policy makers from the start. The same nationally with Schumer. The Left lures us in playing along hoping to suck us so far down the trail, there is no turning back. Lately the Republican Party - maybe more then just lately, has not lead, but caved. I believe that was Schumer and the Left's expectation this time. They will try to use Gun Control against us in 2014 and it seems pretty evident, that regardless of our being in the right, the NRA and Parties included have not articulated the reason for the Right in a manner people in the middle clearly understand. Some do, some don't. The election will tell which.

As to offering a token thinking the other party will see that gesture as willing to work together. No. It was seen and publicized as weakness, as giving in. It like someone comes up to you and says they want what you clearly own. You say no. They say well alright, compromise. Give me something. You go well how about giving me what you already stole (handgun registry in WA). They say sure and then at the last minute as they decide what to additionally take they add oh and we still plan to keep the earlier stuff we took.

The Gun Lobby has not, for years, been able to negotiate from a position of strength for a bunch of reasons we all know, media being one. As long as we react defensively we will continue to loose more and more. We should be demanding more of our 2nd Amendment Rights (SBR's) and ridiculing the Left when they refuse violating the Constitution. This not a friendly rivalry. It is an treacherous war that historically Conservatives loose in the long run because we want to play nice. Screw that!
 
It's a perception issue and having a hand in crafting legislation. The antis are painting us as unwilling to compromise or discuss any solution to reducing gun violence despite not having any solution themselves. Offering to negotiate, eliminates their ability to try to hammer out plans in a vacuum without gun owners input. That and saying we're not willing to have a discussion.

And keep in mind we have background checks and we are stuck with them unless someone comes up with a surefire way to eliminate them.
I'm not talking about pontificating here about how "we ought to do something about that!" That's wasted bandwidth and breath and it comes to nothing.

And, alas, there are a lot of people in the country who vote and don't like us or our guns and unless and until a background check is declared unconstitutional, it's going to be with us.

Don't like them? Don't want them? Elect people who will remove them, or run for office. In the meantime, don't paint yourself into a corner of perception, as Drew suggests. Let the other side do that.
 
Only way I would support it is if we got no registry, $5 flat fee forever, CCW reciprocity nationwide, and a repeal of the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1986 Hughes Amendment.
 
The only way I would vote yes is if:

There is no registry, and no record keeping of who buys what.
CHL would no longer be needed because anyone who passed a background check should be
able to either conceal carry or open carry at any time and at any place. No regulations regarding
size of mags, "assault rifles" etc. Complete reciprocity between states for all of the above.

There's no way to ensure that someone won't shuffle the records away for future nefarious use. There are foxes in the hen house. Also don't forget the 1968 GCA
 
So, there IS "room for negotiation" in your opinion, right?????

Correct, there should be no negotiation to exercise the Right of self defense through the purchase of a firearm or ammunition.

If the purchaser commits a crime, that's when the Gov. should step in and enforce the law by prosecuting said individual. This is sort of an important step and not one either our State or the Federal Gov. seems real enthusiastic about perusing, (Maybe a whole new discussion as to why prosecution for gun crimes isn't happening ranging from plea bargaining guns out of charges for quick convictions to not wanting to offend minority ghettos where gun crime is more rampant - Chicago for instance).

To me it is total fantasy to believe the background check we may extend today - regardless of cost or promises - won't morph into a registry tomorrow. The Liberal Left have said that is their goal over and over. Obama (or "0" as I think of him) has used Executive Orders consistently to undermine the law and Holder obviously doesn't seem interested in Constitutional support either.

You don't negotiate with the devil. You may loose, but believing an offer of compromise isn't seen as a sign of weakness by the other side is just being naive - if not ignorant of 1000 years of history.
Butch
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top