Today is Friday, July 25, 2014rss RSS feed

By Marion P. Hammer

Marion P. Hammer

Marion P. Hammer

Florida - -(Ammoland.com)- Imagine a grandfather who wants to give a family shotgun to his 12-year-old grandson having to do a background check on his grandson before giving him the shotgun.

Or a friend having to do a background check on his lifetime best buddy before lending him a hunting rifle.

Or, if your mother had a prowler at her home, having to do a background check on your own Mom before you could give her one of your guns for protection.

That’s what “universal background checks” do. They turn traditional innocent conduct into a criminal offense. They target you, law-abiding gun owners.

Universal background checks are background checks on EVERY transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, and loan of a firearm between any and all individuals.

All background checks must be conducted through a federally licensed dealer. (costing hard earned cash) Universal background checks have nothing to do with gun shows – they are about you.

  • It is ALREADY a federal felony to be engaged in the business of buying and selling firearms and ammunition without having federal firearm dealers 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, including at retail stores, gun shows, flea markets or anywhere else.
  • Further, it is ALREADY a federal felony for any private person to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person you know or should have known is not legally allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm.

The penalty for selling a gun to a person who is a criminal, mentally ill, mentally incompetent, alcohol abuser or drug abuser is 10-year federal felony. That’s now, today, with no changes to the law.

It is even a federal felony to submit false information on a background check form for the purpose of purchasing a firearm.

Even so, according to a 2012 report to the Department of Justice, more than 72,000 people were turned down on a gun purchase in 2010 because they didn’t pass the background check. Yet, only 44 of those cases were prosecuted.

Why, when criminals are caught in act of lying on the form to illegally purchase a firearm are they not prosecuted?

On Thursday, January 10, 2013, in the White House meeting of President Obama’s Gun Agenda Task Force, Vice President Joe Biden answered that question, telling NRA’s Director of Federal Affairs, James Baker, that the Obama administration didn’t have time to prosecute people for lying on the federal background check form.

In an article in The Daily Caller (1/18/2013) Biden said, “And to your point,
Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.”

If the Obama Administration currently doesn’t have the time or manpower to prosecute those who lie on background check forms, then why do they want more background checks, more paperwork and more forms? It’s backdoor gun registration.

Complete AR15 Rifle Kit

Complete AR15 Rifle Kit

Universal background check system legislation that we have previously seen, allows the government to keep a computerized government registry of gun owners.

In addition to the absurdity of having to do background checks on people you know are not criminals, would you like to pay up to $100 or more just to give your grandson a shotgun or lend a hunting rifle to your best friend or give your Mom a gun for protection?

Transfer fees alone could run from $50 up. Firearms dealers, like other businesses, charge as much as they can get away with. Background check fees for a federally mandated program can be any amount they decide.

The Obama administration’s gun ban agenda and universal background check system are unconstitutional regulatory schemes to gut the Second Amendment. These proposals which mandate the government collection of data on lawful gun buyers and sellers amount to universal gun registration and gun owner licensing.

This agenda focuses on peaceable citizens, not violent criminals who obtain guns on the black-market to carry out unspeakable crimes already prohibited under federal and state laws. Instead of stopping crime and eliminating criminal conduct, they are creating more criminals – they are targeting you.

That’s why NRA Members and the nation’s 100 million firearms owners will stand in solidarity and fight against these misguided and diabolical proposals that have nothing whatsoever to do with curbing criminal violence but everything to do with stripping us of our guaranteed civil rights and our freedom.

Marion P. Hammer is past President of the National Rifle Association and is Executive Director of Unified Sportsmen of Florida

Ammoland Click to read AmmoLand FTC Marital Disclosures Distributed to you by - AmmoLand.com – The Shooting Sports News source.
  • 63 User comments to “‘Universal Background Checks’ – Absolutely Not”

    1. SkippingDog on January 23, 2013 at 1:27 PM said:

      We certainly wouldn’t want to do anything that might actually prevent a convicted criminal or mentally incompetent individual from buying a firearm from a private party….

    2. FYI March Jan 26 2013

      FYI! Gun Control March This Weekend! Check which States!

      1MM4GC National Events on Jan. 26 2013

      One Million Moms for Gun Control is sponsoring and co-sponsoring marches and rallies throughout the nation on Sat., Jan. 26 to demand action on common-sense gun control laws.

      One Million Moms for Gun Control will co-sponsor the March on Washington for Gun Control in Washington, DC, which was created to bring attention to the need for immediate action on common-sense gun legislation. More information on march logistics is available from the March on Washington for Gun Control at:

      http://www.guncontrolmarch.com

      https://www.facebook.com/GunCtrlMarch?fref=ts

      Pass This Along! Time is Short!

      Tagged With States: Greater Denver/Aurora/Boulder Colorado, Houston/East Texas Chapter, Indianapolis Area Chapter, March On Washington, March On Washington, DC

      For Gun Control, Northern New Jersey Chapter, Oregon, Rhode Island, San Francisco Bay Area

    3. The next shoe to drop after background checks will eventually be confiscation. And for those who laugh at that do some history research.

    4. Common Man on January 24, 2013 at 10:27 AM said:

      Hey SkippingDog, looks like you are nothing more than a TROLL. You may want to give up your God Given Rights, I’m not done with mine yet. This has NOTHING to do with criminals. 2011 363 Murders were committed using ANY TYPE OF Rifle. The National Weather Service says that each year 400 People are struck by lightning each year in the U.S.. You have a better chance of being hit by lightning or murdered by a knife or hammer than you do getting shot by a so called “assault rifle.” Lay off the Leftist Kool-Aid and wake the heck up. CM

    5. Dale McMahan on January 24, 2013 at 12:50 PM said:

      For all those sketics,who don’t agree with the 2nd amendment, need to take a course on Marxism. We are not to far away from returning to that lifesytle. Our country is here for the taking, if we just stand back and let our rights on guns and the right to bare arms are taken away from us.

    6. Hey Common Man, it seems that you want to immediately resort to name calling (which appears as a common theme in this site). Perhaps grandma in the article does not know that little grandson to whom she is giving the weapon suffers from mental illness, or that the friend is a convicted felon. Isn’t keeping guns out of the hands of “bad guys” the stated goal of the beloved NRA? BTW, nothing about you right to own a gun is God Given any more than it is your God Given right to drive a car. The right derives from the Second Amendment which allows for regulation.

    7. The NRA must absolutely fight to stop ANY and ALL attempts at passing universal Background checks.

      Further more we need to go back to the way it was before the 1968 Gun Control Act.

      We could buy guns through the mail without background checks or 4473 forms, even Non-violent felons could buy guns, so could people with health problems, yet crime was low.

      We also didn’t have the amount of violence we have to day on the streets because we had a checks and balance in our society between the good people and the bad guys.

      Today’s current gun control laws create a revolving criminal class.

      What we need to be doing is taking a serious look at the effects of SSRI drugs and there relationship to violent crime.

    8. Johnny Nightrider on January 24, 2013 at 1:28 PM said:

      The laws are already there. We don’t need anymore laws.Look at New York now.You can have a 10 round magazine but you can only load 7 rounds.Thats ridiculous.Men and Women have died in battle to keep this country free.People come to America for our freedoms.Its a God given right of self protection and protection of others.The Second Amendment shall not be infringed.I know I would die to keep our freedoms and the freedoms of others.Responsible Gun Owners need to be strong and stand together and not let a tryannical government take our rights away.

    9. Johnny Nightrider on January 24, 2013 at 1:35 PM said:

      We can’t let a tryannical government take our rights away.Responsible gun owners need to stand together.We don’t need anymore gun control laws.The laws on the books are sufficient if prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

    10. DaveGinOly on January 24, 2013 at 2:09 PM said:

      Hey Dave S. – Wrong. The right does not “derive(s) from the Second Amendment which allows for registration.”
      The authors of the Bill of Rights referred to rights as “natural rights.” They acknowledged that the rights, and specifically the right to arms, existed before government (not just the government they created, but before ALL government). The preamble to the BOR would also inform you (if you would take the time to read it) that the rights enumerated in the BOR are only there as a reminder that government has no authority under the Constitution to break into them. That means government has no authority to infringe upon the right to arms, even absent the Second Amendment. The right to arms does not exist because of the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment exists because of the right to arms.
      As for the amendment “allowing registration,” I wonder what amendment you’re reading. I see no such language in any amendment to the constitution. Anyone who refers to the BOR to find governmental authority for ANYTHING is looking in the wrong place. Nothing in the BOR authorizes any government acts – exactly the contrary, the BOR is confirmation that the government doesn’t have certain powers in the organic Constitution. Additionally, all legislative powers are found in Article 1, not in the BOR, and certainly not in the Second Amendment.
      What you may be referring to are court decisions that say government has the authority to regulate firearms (which, if it exists, does not come from the “well regulated” term in the Second Amendment – that term modifies “militia,” not “the right to keep and bear arms,” and doesn’t refer to “regulation” in the modern sense). If so, I’ll have to ask where did they derive that from in the Constitution? Most would reply, “The Commerce Clause.” Then I must ask, “If the Commerce Clause suffices for such actions, why did Congress need a constitutional amendment to effect Prohibition?” And the answer is “Because the purpose of the Commerce Clause is to encourage, facilitate, and improve commerce between the states, and not to interfere with or prohibit it.” (Makes me wonder about our nation’s drug laws.) If the authors of the Constitution had wanted interstate commerce interfered with, prohibited, and strangled, they would have left jurisdiction over same with the states, but they did not, they seized it for the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress in order to prevent the very same interference that they are conducting themselves today, in complete disregard for the purpose and limited scope of the Commerce Clause. (Said “limited scope” having been stretched beyond all recognition by our courts. Government courts are not to be trusted when adjudicating issues of government power and the rights of the people. Anyone who considers the courts “the final word” on these subjects is either a fool or has the mentality of a slave.)

    11. If we respected the 2A we would have all the law we need to keep us safe!

      We dont need the gun control laws we currently have on the books to keep us safe. Nor do we need to enforce them!

      We MUST repeal the 68GCA and the NICS.

      If we respected the 2A we would be safe!

      How did we survive as a nation before ALL of this gun control?

      We had a checks and balance in our country between the good people and the bad guys!

      Prior to the 68GCA nonviolent felons could buy guns yet crime was low?

      WHY?

      Because we had a Checks and Balance!

      WE DONT NEED THE LAWS WE CURRENTLY HAVE TO BE SAFE!

    12. I posted something very similar to the following under the “Will the U.S. Follow Germany’s Freedom Killing Example?” but I think this is a better venue for honest feedback.
      It has often occurred to me that this is an issue over which federal government should take control. After all, the Constitution applies to ALL Americans, not just those in certain states. As an adult, law-abiding Massachusetts citizen, I have to take a gun safety course and pass a records check, but once I do that, and the records show I’m not an ex-con or a mental case, I get finger-printed and photographed, pay a $100 fee, and am issued a License to Carry (including concealed) by my town’s Chief of Police (at his/her discretion; an admittedly serious point of contention) that is good for 5 years. The photo ID identifies me as a legal gun-possessor and allows me to buy guns and ammo (in-state at least; other bad Bay State laws ban me from purchasing “assault weapons” and don’t allow me to buy handguns out-of-state, but those are other issues) with minimal hassle. I don’t have any problem with passing a records check, taking a required safety course, getting finger-printed, and placed in a records data bank somewhere, because these regulations work pretty well, I think, to keep guns and ammo out of the hands of the immature and the mental/social defectives who have brought down so much wrath upon us law-abiding gun owners. If such an ID program was instituted at the federal level, providing a “national right-to-carry” photo ID card, I could go anywhere in the country, in any state, able to protect myself without worrying about violating any local/state law and getting arrested for it. I know there are states (like my neighbor Vermont) that require no state LTC to buy and purchase firearms and ammo, but there are also many (like Illinois and New Jersey) that wouldn’t allow me to buy or even have a gun in possession. So yes, a federal gun ID would result in the loss of rights in some states, but it would sure ensure gun-carrying rights nationwide. And once you have such an ID, you could use it in private or public purchases to show the seller you are legal to buy and own firearms; no need for any background check. If the public and private sector could only sell guns to those with IDs, then there would be no need “to close the gun show loophole” or require paperwork/registration for every gun and ammo sale.
      OK, it’s just an idea, and I know a lot of you will attack me just for suggesting it, but I honestly think it’s a suggestion worth considering because it would simplify and level the gun/ammo purchasing process and stop “anti-gun” states like NY from trampling on the rights of their citizens and visitors. It’s sure better than a national ban on modern rifles, or allowing the next lunatic mass murderer to buy a gun in a “no questions asked” state. Obviously any such plan would have to be carefully developed and vetted, but I’d like to hear if any others have considered a similar solution to many of the issues we gun-owners are continually subjected to due to the illegal actions of a tiny minority of mental/social defectives.

    13. Shawn Grammont on January 24, 2013 at 8:07 PM said:

      The truth and facts about guns should be pushed into the mainstream media to expose the flaws of failed gun control.

    14. Peteowl — A well reasoned intelegent proposal. Still I suspect that you are correct that you will be attacked as some sort of trator worthy of death by even suggesting additional regulation no matter how well reasoned. Even though I suspect we are on opposite sides of the gun rights debate it is nice to actually hear a proposal that might take the numerous, frequently contradictory State laws and create a unified regulation to protect lawful gun owners.I also think that the issue of purchase/sale/ownership regulation for those who want guns for self protection needs to be seperated from the fringe element who actually thinks that the need to own weapons is to protect ourselves from a “tyranical government.” This is not 1917 Russia, or Hitler’s Germany. To suggest that the we are on the verge of becoming a totalitarian government verges on paranoia. Further,to suggest that this nations gun owners could ever prevent our country from becoming ________ (plug in your choice of government that would warrant the taking up of arms)is equally paranoid. I, for one, choose not to live in an armed camp because of an irrational fear of my elected government. In reading these web cites I see a bunch of guys (and women) who talk tough about their willingness totake up arms against the government should there be (God forbid) additional gun regulation. I call BS. Tough talk is cheap. When the rubber hits the road, most gun owners will comply with whatever new regulations are inacted. As far as DaveGinOly is concerned, I will only say that the authors of the BOR (who as you well know had only flint locks and probably couldn’t have imagned an AR-15s with a 20 round mag) had various points of view. To suggest that any of the 27 Constitutional Amendments are not subject to regulation or interpretation by the courts because they are “naturel (God given) rights” is simply wrong. For example, your “natural right” of free speech is not unconstitutionally infringed by a law that prevents you from yelling fire in a crowded theater.There are many colors to this debate. I for one am not against gun ownership but I am in favor of greater regulation and limits of the type of gun that you (and I) can oen and under what circumstances. Many want no regulation at all and will beat me over the head with their bible to prove it (or worse). Some (I suspect) would have no private gun ownership at all. To suggest that we will all get what we want (as logical as our argument may be)is ill informed.

    15. clearanceman on January 25, 2013 at 8:04 AM said:

      Creeping legislation to erode our constitutional rights under the premise of being “reasonable.” Ok, you going to do universal background checks? So there has to be a fee. And criminals won’t do it. And Manchin said keep them from people with mental health problems. But wait, I thought only people who were convicted felons or domestic violence misdemeanors could be turned down? Are we adding other categories where people have to lose a constitutional right? Like depression? And what a great way to compile a national database for later gun grabbing. Nice work Manchin, you lost my vote next time. He thinks because he has six years we will forget.

    16. Dave S. I am sorry but you are incorrect in your interpretation of the BOR. The language is quite clear. “Shall not be infringed.” is actually part of the text. The right is given “to the people.” not to the states or the militia. The founders were smart guys. If they intended the right to be under government purview or restricted to just states forming militias they would have written that way. Back when the BOR was added speech was simple. Mean what you state and state what you mean. Not the legalese double speak we have today.
      Now about the first amendment and the restriction on shouting fire in a crowded theater. I think you miss the point. The government in order to prevent you from do that did take away your vocal cords, did they. They didn’t make the word “fire” a felony to even speak, did they? All they did was clarify that your right to free speech was not unlimited and that your actions have consequences. If I shout “fire” in a crowded theatre for the purpose of causing a panic and hurting people I cannot avoid prosecution by hiding behind my 1st amendment right of free speech. I am still responsible for my actions. I ask you this. If the theatre were on fire and someone shouted “fire” for the purposes of getting people out of the theatre and to save lives should they be prosecuted? Would that be a responsible use of free speech?
      The difference between your analogy on the 1st and 2nd should be clear. I have the right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms (weapons, not just firearms). I can and should be held responsible for how I use them. If I carry my weapon into a theatre the 2nd amendment does not give me the right to stand up and start shooting with the intent of injuring someone or causing a panic. But if there is someone trying to kill me or my family (CO shooter) I do have the god given right to self defense and therefore the right to use deadly force to protect myself and my loved ones.

    17. Seanoamericano on January 25, 2013 at 12:13 PM said:

      Dave S
      Your logic is flawed because the BOR restricts the government it does not grant rights. At least the first 10. Then it becomes twisted and not the founding fathers intentions. The term reasonable means nothing because there is nothing reasonable being proposed by the administration. Since they have lied at every turn and bypassed the rules
      of law by using E.O. and middle of the night legislation, skewed statistics and completely ignored the reason these kids are committing these acts to push an agenda. It doesnt matter what the media lies about, how many shills they hire or how many one sided scripted infomercials they have, The BOR clearly states that we the People have the right to possess the tools to defend ourselves and the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. Domestic means people like you, this administration,and anybody else that wants to do us harm. We are far from being paranoid we are aware of what you and yours are capable of doing against dis armed people.

    18. Seanoamericano on January 25, 2013 at 12:28 PM said:

      Forgot to mention the fraudulent documents and not prosecuting the presenters. Think Birth Certificate Selective service Social Security of the guy pushing this absurd agenda.

    19. TheGunsmith on January 25, 2013 at 2:28 PM said:

      It is illegal for a 12-year old to possess a gun, and it is currently illegal for a grandfather to give him one. Your argument is stupid.

    20. littlebirdie on January 25, 2013 at 3:31 PM said:

      TheGunsmith on January 25, 2013 at 2:28 PM said:

      “It is illegal for a 12-year old to possess a gun, and it is currently illegal for a grandfather to give him one. Your argument is stupid”

      But wait a 12 year old can have a hunting license, so if it was illegal to possess a gun than what would he hunt with?????

    21. luckychucky on January 25, 2013 at 3:55 PM said:

      @ TheGunsmith, I don’t know what state you are from, but where I live in NM you are incorrect. A 12 year old can be in posession of a gun for hunting, practice, and training purposes.

    22. First Last on January 25, 2013 at 4:14 PM said:

      It is really simple:
      1) Issue card with Name and unique number that can be checked to see if it is revoked via Inter and unique number (site and numbers updated by DOJ) for those who qualify (no felonies, or mental illness).
      2) When buying or selling, both parties check other party’s validity of card via Internet site, verify name matches ID and card, buy and sell all paperless, as both are kosher to own firearms.

      #1, and #2 would solve all problems with everything, and no need to register. It’s so simple that Obama could do it. He will not, because he can’t track firearms that way, and the ONLY reason to track/register is for a future confiscation… as it can serve no other purpose.

    23. clearanceman on January 25, 2013 at 4:22 PM said:

      First Last:

      That’s simple? So these things have to be done in order to exercise a constitution right? Liberals won’t even allow an ID to vote, they would go nuts if they had to do all those things to vote. But it’s my right they would say. Well so is owning a gun, you can’t just make a bunch of arbitrary hoops for people to jump through because it makes you feel better.

    24. clearanceman on January 25, 2013 at 4:23 PM said:

      First Last, I know you are trying to help but we need less not more.

    25. First Last on January 25, 2013 at 4:43 PM said:

      No, it would be nothing but a verification of no felonies, nor mental illness. Paper-free aside from that, to buy AND sell.

      You have to remember that I live in Cali, and here Rifles will be registered starting next year for all purchases, and transfers, and handguns already are, so this would make us paper-free, and you just a card-carrier, so I don’t really know about freedom, but this is a solution that would function for everyone, but they want registration (probably for a future confiscation), so I just am saying that it is a possibility for a perfect solution so they cannot overstep their bounds if they want to get all tyrant-y, and don’t know what we have, but know we are legal to own…

    26. Sleddogg on January 25, 2013 at 4:59 PM said:

      There is only one reason for gun registration, and that is for future confiscation. and no, i’m not paranoid. I find it disturbing that i have to take time out of my busy life to defend my rights from the government. i find it more so disturbing that the majority of americans voted this government into office.

    27. US Citizen on January 25, 2013 at 5:04 PM said:

      Gun owners: If you don’t already, please support our gun lobbyists. They are our voice in Washington protecting our rights.
      Protectionists: Inform yourselves, arm yourselves, and live free.

    28. clearanceman on January 25, 2013 at 5:22 PM said:

      First Last they would say. Well, you might develop mental illness so you need a yearly mental illness check up to make sure you can keep your piece of paper. Nevermind that the constitution says nothing about being assessed for mental illness in order to keep the right to own a firearm.

    29. Paul Yoder on January 25, 2013 at 5:36 PM said:

      If they really want to insure no felons/ dangerous mentally ill/ domestic abusers get firearms, simply make available a list of barred persons. Anyone wishing to sell/loan/transfer a weapon could check the list to insure no one disqualified gets one. No paperwork, no background check, NO government database on decent citizens. NO PROBLEM. Enforce the laws that are already on the books, STOP COLLECTING DATA ON INNOCENT, LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS.

    30. clearanceman on January 25, 2013 at 5:41 PM said:

      If they made it like drugs and made it 100% illegal, criminals would still get as many as they wanted. And the powers that be know it. This is all just to get rid of the “gun culture.”

    31. Brigido Garcia USN Ret on January 25, 2013 at 6:19 PM said:

      I am still firedup about the Fast and Furious so called investigation, and if the liberal Obama admnistration get their way with background checks on gun owners, what about those legal gun that the federal government lost track and wound up in Mexico ? Will the Anti-Gun Liberal of the Obama Administration vigerously go after them to find out the cuurent ownership of the gun , count the bullets in he magazines and so forth.

    32. Thomas Robertson on January 25, 2013 at 7:12 PM said:

      As a Brit, I find the first paragraph desturbing! Who in their right mind would give a 12 year old a shotgun? Only in America!

    33. tim venable on January 25, 2013 at 7:30 PM said:

      I have read second amendment several times where do you
      Get regulation from. It says shall not be infringed. Shall is not permiisive. Regulation is infringement.

    34. tim venable on January 25, 2013 at 7:37 PM said:

      Sorry brit if you were in a free country you would be aware
      You have to be 18 to have a rifle or shotgun. You might be shooting with adult supervision under 18.

    35. B. miller on January 25, 2013 at 7:44 PM said:

      @Thomas Robertson. I killed my first small game when I was 10. A couple of rabbits with my father. If you teach your children to respect firearms they are way less likely to treat them as a toy and have an accident. Teaching people at an early age that firearms are a tool used to kill is the best way to make sure people respect them as a child and when they grow up. As a Brit though I don’t expect you to grasp that fact. Your gun laws have got your citizens so out of touch with firearms that yo only see the bad side. We aren’t talking about just giving a child a gun to play with unsupervised. It’s about giving them their own firearm that stays in the gun safe with dad’s guns and is used for hunting and shooting responsibly. Sure guns can be used for evil but more often then that they are used for hunting, self defense, and just enjoying the sport of shooting. I guarantee if I took you to a skeet/trap range to shoot clay pigeons you would have a blast!

    36. Bill Snyder on January 25, 2013 at 8:03 PM said:

      My Father grew up on a farm in Ohio, he and all 8 of his brothers had shot guns by the time they were 12, and not ONE of them EVER had any firearm related injuries or deaths.

    37. Washington tells us they cannot enforce the laws on the books now, so they want to make more laws? Enforce the gun laws on the books, prosecute criminals who use guns, and leave the law abiding citizens alone already.

    38. SuburbanDad on January 25, 2013 at 9:04 PM said:

      Oh damn.

      I thought this article was going to be about background checks and drug test on welfare recipients, not gun owners.

    39. I’ve “done that thing” for my country once already. I certainly don’t need (nor care to join) the NRA to task my legislators to put this gun registration crap to bed. I’ve written to them. I’ll call them. I’ll let them know where exactly it is that I stand when it comes to my rights. Everyone should do the same. Which ever side of the aisle they’re on, they’re still YOUR public servants.

    40. First of all, I don’t care what Anyone from another Country thinks about our laws, or our guns.
      At 8 years old my Father gave me my first shotgun, after he taught me firearms safety and how to take care of it. In a legal sense, it was still his until I reached a legal age 18.
      I did hunt by myself by around 10 years of age, and I have handed down a few guns to younger people in the family. I did teach them firearms safety and I did refuse an older family member, due to conduct issues. The biggest issue is being responsible and using common sense.
      The 1994 Clinton Gun & Magazine ban Failed to reduce violent crime, just like the “gun free zones” have Failed, so why would anyone want what has failed already?
      Mental illness is a complex issue, as there are several forms of mental illness. The only people that should be prevented from buying a gun, are those that are not in touch with reality, or a danger to others.
      Let’s Register All Violent Criminals, and let them pay the price for Violent Crime!
      We should have “Term Limits” on the Senate & Congress, because they get too powerful over the years.

    41. Fisherman on January 26, 2013 at 12:45 PM said:

      Doc, same here. I was almost 8 when I got my first 16 gauge shotgun. It was a bolt action Mossberg. Wasn’t ready the first time and it knocked me on my butt. LOL Anyway, my dad was there with me the entire time and we never had any mishaps. Then he bought me a Winchester 30-30 and we went deer hunting together. I was all by myself out there with a tool for harvesting meat. Didn’t get any but the point is that before all of this communist restriction, this country and it’s people did just fine and almost everyone was armed. In Bodie, CA, the toughest mining town during the Gold Rush period, the crime rate against citizens was almost nil. The rape rate was zero. In fact, there is on record, a case where one fellow spent 30 days in the local jail for using foul language in front of a woman. So, can you imagine what they’d do to you if you committed rape? It should still be that way. One fellow was getting robbed and saved himself with a bowie knife. Cut the robber to the bone he said. The point is, the good and decent people survived most attacks because they had the tools to fight back.

      They start this and that and call for registration, I will not comply.

    42. Daniel Hebert on January 26, 2013 at 1:03 PM said:

      I for one am all for initial background checks and tight regulations for all gun purchases. After my conviction I lost my gun rights. I finished everything and petitioned to have my rights reinstated. I will follow any law that does not infringe on my rights. Now that my rights are restored I will not let them be stripped just because someone performed an illegal act with a “assault rifle”. Whats next people losing there right to sports cars because of to many high speed accidents. Or losing our trucks because of too many drunk driving accidents? Just because one person performs any violent act with any tool does not make that tool violent. A hammer cannot nail a nail without a person swinging it. A saw cannot cut wood without a person operating it. Just like a gun cannot kill without a person pulling the trigger. The size of the magazine does not matter, the type of gun does not matter the only thing that matters is the intent of the user. On my last handgun exercise with friends I fired 200 rounds in less than 5 minutes with a 1911 with 2 8 round magazines. All but 5 were either center mass heart rounds or head shots. Using a abandoned house for training. This is the training of a average person. I have trained against home invasion and breach entry. All of this training is with perfectly legal handguns. The size of the magazine/clip doesn’t matter. The type of gun doesn’t matter. Just the intent.

    43. Sammy Kosbar on January 26, 2013 at 4:15 PM said:

      Obama and his administration seam to foget that they work for us (The People) and would not have a job if we didn’t put them their. Know taking are god given human rights away from us makes him no better than any Dictator. Guns are not the problem, so stop working on new laws that will fail.

    44. Sure, the odd mental case will be able to buy. Criminals already can get one somewhere. So, what does the check accomplish? It puts you on the database that will be used when the fascist Democrats sic the BATF, TSA, FBI, etc on us to confiscate or liquidate.

    45. I would like to see more saftey programs and gun saftey courses for first time gun owners and an end to civil lawsuits from criminals when a lawbiding citzen uses lethal force in self defense

    46. Mom-of-8 on January 27, 2013 at 7:52 PM said:

      My 12, 10, 8, 6 and 5 year olds all target shoot with their grandfather, who did 2 tours as an officer and company commander in Vietnam. It is a wonderful experience, and if they shoul choose to hunt or target shoot competitively, I would highly encourage them.

    47. Robert Myles on January 29, 2013 at 9:56 PM said:

      A quick and rather simple look at the history of Gun control laws will will show that they were written to restrict ‘law abiding citizen’s’ not to resctrict Criminal’s. Any additional regulation, licensing,Fee’s Universal background checks on any and all firearms transaction’. Willgive a Tyrannical Government all the information it needs to begin Confiscation. If you listen to Frankenstien past and present along with witch pelosi and now the impostoor in our whitehouse the end game, the true nature, the final desire is total disarmament of the law abiding citizen’s just as it has in England, Australia, Brazil and hundred’s of small dictator controlled countries. With the UN agenda and small arms trade treaty their end game is total disarmamwnt of all cilivian’s. This is not the action’s of a ‘benevolent government’ it is the steps toward socialism, communism the 10 planks of communism, or the 45 objectives. read them then read the gun laws and you will see quite clearly where we are headed.

    48. [...] are hearing calls from President Obama for universal background checks and no private firearms transfers. The real reason for universal background checks is not to make sure bad people are not getting [...]

    49. Kenneth Trawick on February 4, 2013 at 10:56 PM said:

      Make no mistake, this is not about background checks on firearms purchases. It’s about recording all firearm transfers (from one person to another) so the FED will eventually know where all firearms are located. I think I should be able to pass my firearms down to my children or grandchildren without telling anyone. With universal background checks I can’t do that without violating the law.
      This will empower the FED way more than I like to see.

    50. back ground checks is another violation of our rights in this country, IT WIIL FOR SURE, BECOME A TOOL FOR GUN CONFISCATION.WE NEED TO HAVE THESE PEOPLE TO STOP THIER ATTACKS ON LAWABIDING CITIZEN IN THIS COUNTRY.

    51. I agree with Fisherman – I think the realization has hit most non-koolaide drinkers in that (without sounding like a conspiracy monger) our government is too powerful. They do not fear us, other than the fear of an uprising to change the way they operate. They will take our guns away if we let them. The government wants us disarmed. PERIOD. They will use any ploy, policy, fear, and tactic “they” can. We have to stand up together and fight this. I’m for initial background checks. I think it holds some accountability and gives credibility to the institution of gun ownership. But if you give an inch, the govt will take 10 miles.

    52. Excellent points in the article Marion. To the ignorant trolls whose interjections are rife with their hatred of those of us who choose to enjoy our rights, you will always be eating the soylent the government feeds you because you will never amount to anything enabling you or your welfare offspring to escape your kennels. One big aspect of this whole program, is intended, as always, to create another government entity with thousands of government jobs that will have to vote for the party that gifts them these income streams that they would never qualify for otherwise (can you say TSA? Postal service?). Taking any guns and tracking any individuals who don’t swallow their shit is just gravy on top of creating this huge swell of new voters.

    53. RockIsland29 on March 22, 2013 at 2:14 PM said:

      I believe the universal background check can only be accomplished by required registration of firearms and owners. We have seen the results of this in the wholesale confiscation of common firearms in G.B. and Australia.
      If this administration would concentrate in enforcing the laws we have now, it would go a lot further than useless harassment of law abiding citizens.

    54. Cauthon on March 29, 2013 at 2:33 AM said:

      And what about all the guns we have that we bought or inherited decades ago without paperwork? Will we be arrested and thrown in jail if we can’t prove on the spot that those guns were bought legally? And is that the purpose of the new legislation that they are trying to pass? There are ways to write a background check law to make it almost reasonable, but I do not expect the pols to do that.

    55. wldy1005 on April 1, 2013 at 11:35 AM said:

      it seems a majority of us are against universal background checks. i wonder where these polls of “90% of americans are FOR universal background checks” ARE?! and who is recording them then reporting them! so that if they are wrong they can be held accountable for thier false reporting!!

    56. Bill Baker on April 1, 2013 at 11:46 AM said:

      @wldy1005: They get poll results like that when they look around the office at the DNC and say, who here supports universal background checks…

    57. What is the big deal with registration of guns? Why would anyone be against it? If I sell my car I need to transfer the registration and that doesn’t seem like tyranny to me. From where I sit I personally would like to find out who buys guns legally and then sells to the underground. I have a lot of trouble understanding the opposition to registration and background checks. Again, it seems no more tyrannical than the DMV.

    58. Seven Media Myths About The Gun Background Check SystemGrubbyhub Blog on April 11, 2013 at 2:11 PM said:

      [...] That’s what “universal background checks” do. They turn traditional innocent conduct into a criminal offense. They target you, law-abiding gun owners. [AmmoLand.com, 1/23/13] [...]

    59. Some people prefer taking weight loss tea, appetite suppressant, or fat binder products.

      o Other important areas for weight loss like exercise and psychological factors are not endorsed in this program.
      Otherwise, you can replace the lukewarm water with
      a cup of milk, or even a bowl of cereal with milk.

    60. natural oil on April 27, 2013 at 12:33 PM said:

      And, it is the perfect product to carry in my purse for use during the day.
      It is possibly the most all-natural, healthiest, and friendliest skin moisturizer that
      people can use. Of course the best advice is to avoid these larger branches
      in the first place and to prune them when they’re small.

    61. Sallie on May 8, 2013 at 12:04 AM said:

      I comment when I like a post on a website or if I have something to valuable to contribute to the conversation.
      Usually it is triggered by the passion displayed in the post I
      looked at. And on this article ‘Universal Background Checks’ – Absolutely Not.
      I was actually moved enough to post a thought :-P I do have 2
      questions for you if you usually do not mind.
      Could it be only me or does it look as if like some
      of these responses come across like they are coming
      from brain dead visitors? :-P And, if you are posting at additional places, I would like
      to follow anything fresh you have to post. Could you make a list
      all of all your public pages like your linkedin profile, Facebook page or twitter feed?

    62. Hi, this weekend is good in support of me, for the reason that this
      moment i am reading this fantastic informative article here at my home.

    Leave a Comment

    • Sign up Ammoland for your Inbox

      Daily Digest

      Monthly Newsletter

    • Recent Comments

      • Frank: I recently purchased a Magnum Research 1911 Undercover and have read several reviews and no one has mentioned...
      • Anonymous: I can’t believe he was spouting conservative ideals and he does nothing about this. His shameful...
      • Eric: Permits are for states that violate your right to bear arms and defend yourself. Dont be misled that permits...
      • Johnb206: Hey there, You have done a great job. I’ll definitely digg it and personally recommend.
      • Paul Dadas: I would love my first sporting rifle to be a DDM4v9!
    • Social Activity

    • Most Popular Posts

    • Google+ Direct Connect

    Copyright 2014 AmmoLand.com Shooting Sports News | Sitemap | Μολὼν λαβέ

    Win a Daniel Defense DDM4v9 Rifle

    Subscribe and receive our emails , the drawing will be August 15, 2014 maybe you will be the lucky shooter receiving a Daniel Defense DDM4v9 Rifle. For more information visit the Daniel Defense promotional page.
    Monthly email subscription from Ammoland
    14092624
    14661976