Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-22-2019, 7:29 PM
tdhanson tdhanson is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 42
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default Horse trading. UBC in Trade for ...

I was brainstorming what Iíd want to gain if I were to accept UBC

First I donít really have a problem with a background check per say except that itís currently ties my info to a particular purchase with firearm info. Iím wondering why it couldnít be changed to be solely on my info and allow any purchase within a timeframe such as 30-69 days. This would eliminate any registration concerns.

But in trade Iíd want one or more ( or better all) of the following:

No magazine capacity restrictions
No roster restrictions
National CCW reciprocity or even better Constitutional Carry


Basically my line in the sand is drawn. Iím not giving up anything without getting back what the 2nd should have allowed all along.

I sure hope my one vote counts
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-22-2019, 8:08 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 1,028
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

There have already been several threads on what you would be willing to 'trade' in exchange for background checks. (Just one example.)

When asked whether I'd be willing to trade (compromise) a right for something else, the 'vital truth' is that we have ALL traded/compromised our rights to some degree to live in the society we currently have. When asked whether I'd be willing to trade/compromise MORE of my rights for something that we 'should' already have, and what I'm being asked to give up is something already declared to be a mechanism that will be used in an attempt to TAKE (not trade) more of my rights, I don't see that as a 'fair trade;' especially when we already have evidence we won't even get what we would, ostensibly, be trading for.

Dubious that UBC would lead to registration and confiscation? See my posts Here, Here, and Here.

So... When you say...

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdhanson
Iím not giving up anything without getting back what the 2nd should have allowed all along.
Are you sure of what you'd be giving up? Are you certain, absolutely guaranteed, to get what you want? Why would you trade (give up) more of your right to, ostensibly, 'get back' what already should be your's?

You have to bear in mind that you're asking 'the other side' to ALSO 'trade' something. Just like you, they are only willing to trade the minimum, if anything at all. This is why such discourse typically breaks down on every single one of these types of threads where people ask what we'd be willing to 'trade' in exchange for. We already know what 'the other side' wants. Sooner or later, you end up here...

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-22-2019, 8:30 PM
Elgatodeacero Elgatodeacero is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 377
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

This thread reminded me I am not eating near enough cake, and that is all changing starting tomorrow.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-22-2019, 9:38 PM
ARFrog's Avatar
ARFrog ARFrog is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Northern Calif - East Bay area
Posts: 450
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Thoughts about gun control compromise strategy:

image.jpg

Which reminds me, I would like some pie...peach pie...heated...with crumbly topping...and ice cream...
__________________


ARFrog

Last edited by ARFrog; 08-22-2019 at 9:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-22-2019, 10:01 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,901
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdhanson View Post
I was brainstorming what Iíd want to gain if I were to accept UBC

First I donít really have a problem with a background check per say except that itís currently ties my info to a particular purchase with firearm info. Iím wondering why it couldnít be changed to be solely on my info and allow any purchase within a timeframe such as 30-69 days. This would eliminate any registration concerns.

But in trade Iíd want one or more ( or better all) of the following:

No magazine capacity restrictions
No roster restrictions
National CCW reciprocity or even better Constitutional Carry


Basically my line in the sand is drawn. Iím not giving up anything without getting back what the 2nd should have allowed all along.

I sure hope my one vote counts
Yeah no thanks. Roster restrictions are unique to a few states and about ten have magazine capacity restrictions. 42 or 43 are also shall issue and of the remaining few many counties are shall issue while others are no issue. The rest of us are not going to trade UBC's so people in SF can carry. The only way UBC is enforceable is with a national gun registry. Registrations always leads to confiscation. You might be able to sell the American public on say 20rd pistol caliber magazine protection for federal red flag laws, but UBCs aren't happening.

The only negotiation I would take for UBC is a constitutional amendment protecting carrying, modern sporting rifles, NFA items, magazines of all size, and preventing any type of national firearm registry. We get all of those things then sure, the gun control advocates can have their useless UBC law.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-23-2019, 9:28 AM
rero360 rero360 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 3,842
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

I posted this idea on another board however that thread disappeared:

In exchange for UBC, we replace the current system with LiveScan, the system is already being used for other purposes and thus using it for gun purchases makes it impossible to link the livescan to a firearm, the government wonít know if you doing the livescan for a gun, a job, a security clearance or something else.

Additionally, we demand that the Sporting purpose section of the Ď86 FOPA get overturned, SBRs/SBSs and suppressors be removed from the NFA. Additionally, nationwide constitutional carry.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-23-2019, 9:45 AM
ja308's Avatar
ja308 ja308 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 10,397
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

seems background checks are really extremely stupid and just another way for government to have more things to do !

News flash if a person is so dangerous they should not have a firearm. What the are they doing in society anyway, as there is an unlimited supply of really dangerous weapons that could be used.

Too dangerous for a gun -- stay in prison !
__________________
"Both socialism & communism require a commitment to the use of force. You cannot decide what to do with the other guyís money unless you are committed to use force to take that money from him..."
Rick Kelo
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams.
Who is John Galt!
Recent NRA LIFE ENDOWMENT MEMBER--on the way to PATRON. See you friends, in Nashville next April 2020.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-23-2019, 9:45 AM
kcheung2's Avatar
kcheung2 kcheung2 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,156
iTrader: 33 / 100%
Default

Like the cartoons illustrated, the prohibitionist's idea of compromise is that instead of taking everything right now, they'll take most of it & write in some exemptions. Then 2 years later they'll call those exemptions loopholes and ban those too.
__________________
---------------------
"There is no "best." If there was, everyone here would own that one, and no other." - DSB
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-23-2019, 9:57 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,806
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Horse trading sounds great. If I were horse trading, UBC would be a great thing to offer, because it's not a burden and it's reasonable.

In return I would want national CCW recip, and possibly repeal of the Hughes Amendment.

Of course... horse trading is what the other side never does. For them, compromise means they get some of what they want now, they plan to get the rest of it later, and we get nothing.
__________________
"H--l, yes, we're going to take your AR-15"
- Robert "Beto" O'Rourke
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-23-2019, 9:59 AM
California_Deplorable's Avatar
California_Deplorable California_Deplorable is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: A van down by the river.
Posts: 3,737
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

Dems could have UBC yesterday if they were willing to compromise. As in the UBC system merely confirms if you are eligible to possess firearms period. It does not record any information of any kind. Not even that a check was performed on you. Completely anonymous. And do away with 4473 or any kind of paperwork. And anyone can check on anyone. You want to know if someone can buy a gun from you? Just call a number or go online and enter their information get an answer and thats it. Keep it as simple and straightforward as possible. But of course that will never fly because UBC are merely backdoor registration.
__________________
The OPINIONS expressed herein are NOT legal advice.

Last edited by California_Deplorable; 08-23-2019 at 10:07 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-23-2019, 10:13 AM
LTC-J LTC-J is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 487
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Sure... they get UBC with no records saved... we get every other gun law removed with extreme penalties for ANY politicians at ANY level trying to infringe on 2a and extreme penalties for using a firearm in commission of a violent crime(ie robberies, murder, etc) plus voter id.

Sounds about as reasonable as any of their 'compromises'.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-23-2019, 10:56 AM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 281
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Exactly. This is why the poles drive me nuts.

"Do you think everyone should pass a background check to buy a gun?"

vs.

"Do you think everyone should drive to a dealer (however far away), pay a fee, wait anywhere from 3-10 days, drive back to the dealer to pick it up, and have to abide by any restriction or law that the local government can think of?"

Answers would be a bit different... especially in states that unlike CA, do not already have background checks and all our BS. Then there is still nothing to stop them later from imposing additional restrictions on background checks. The point of NOT having universal background checks is that it is still possible to acquire a firearm without the Government getting involved.

As someone has already said, today's exemption is tomorrows "loophole."

Last edited by mit31; 08-23-2019 at 10:58 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-23-2019, 11:46 AM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 2,700
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

When you start trading rights you never really had them and certainly won't get them back.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-23-2019, 6:24 PM
DB> DB> is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 175
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

I don't think there would be an issue with the above suggestions that the background check is on the INDIVIDUAL (AKA buyer), with no attachment to the firearm. Perhaps even a national license of some sort that would show you can buy without dealing with a crazy quilt of state laws...

Similar to background checks for jobs, anything dealing with children, and other situations where you don't want certain people in certain scenarios, it doesn't require a gun registry, only the ability of a seller (be they an FFL or a private party) to make sure the nice dude or dude-ette who wants to buy is not a felon, druggie, lunatic, or otherwise likely to harm themselves or others.

The endless unnatural attachment of the issue to inanimate objects rather than the INDIVIDUAL is a big part of the problem. The Proglodytes won't give up on the dream of total ban/confiscation, and the pro 2A can't give even an inch as long as that is out there... but perhaps agreeing that neither side wants sketchy people getting their guns "legally" (they will ALWAYS have back alley access...) would at least be a "feel good" law that might do some good, and shouldn't unjustly infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens?

Now how do we get enough of the free states to pass something that is actually sensible over the whining of the gun grabber loonie tunes?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-24-2019, 12:40 PM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 11,247
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdhanson View Post
I was brainstorming what I’d want to gain if I were to accept UBC

First I don’t really have a problem with a background check per say except that it’s currently ties my info to a particular purchase with firearm info. I’m wondering why it couldn’t be changed to be solely on my info and allow any purchase within a timeframe such as 30-69 days. This would eliminate any registration concerns.

But in trade I’d want one or more ( or better all) of the following:

No magazine capacity restrictions
No roster restrictions
National CCW reciprocity or even better Constitutional Carry

Basically my line in the sand is drawn. I’m not giving up anything without getting back what the 2nd should have allowed all along.

I sure hope my one vote counts
You might think about your brainstorming in a way that does not screw over those of us in states that do not require universal background checks, don't have magazine capacity restrictions, don't have a roster, have constitutional carry, and CWL reciprocity with 40+ other states. Our state consititution states that we will conform to federal law, and nothing beyond that. Our state police are prohibited from enforcing federal gun laws.

You may have your line in the sand...I'd guess you'll erase it just like an incoming tide.
__________________
Tactical is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf

If I could live my life all over,
It wouldn't matter anyway,
'Cause I never could stay sober
On the Corpus Christi Bay. Robert Earl Keene

Heaven goes by favor.
If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in. Mark Twain

Last edited by -hanko; 08-24-2019 at 2:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-24-2019, 2:10 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 220
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

UBC can probably be easily done at a state level but NICS is reserved only for FFLs/State and not individuals. In MA we get a permit and a PIN. When you buy a weapon from a PPT, you and the person go online and can effectively check if the license is valid. Effectively, youíve done a background check and perhaps the MA permit could be run against NICS periodically. But how did MA abuse this? Simple, you are effectively recording the transfer as well as checking eligibility. This portal was established like 6 years ago by Democrats and now they want to remove it because itís a loophole.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-24-2019, 3:31 PM
Dan_Eastvale's Avatar
Dan_Eastvale Dan_Eastvale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,855
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

UBC are unreasonable and unconstitutional.. In Utah and most other places we already have standard mags, no DROS.. No registration.. Shall issue and statewide guaranteed CCW.
We do not want to use an FFL and pay a fee..Or worse a frickin waiting period...
For the majority of the country there would be no trade off... We would be losing a right we already have and getting nothing in return!!!

I have NO issue doing PPT in a parking lot.. It should be expected.. You can gauge a person's character fairly decently in a short face to face.. No major issues with this in Utah and many other fly over states!!

Sensible gun control... Phooey!!!!

Last edited by Dan_Eastvale; 08-24-2019 at 3:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-24-2019, 9:08 PM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 11,247
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_Eastvale View Post
UBC are unreasonable and unconstitutional.. In Utah and most other places we already have standard mags, no DROS.. No registration.. Shall issue and statewide guaranteed CCW.
We do not want to use an FFL and pay a fee..Or worse a frickin waiting period...
For the majority of the country there would be no trade off... We would be losing a right we already have and getting nothing in return!!!

I have NO issue doing PPT in a parking lot.. It should be expected.. You can gauge a person's character fairly decently in a short face to face.. No major issues with this in Utah and many other fly over states!!

Sensible gun control... Phooey!!!!
It's the Calguns way...

Before both of FBHO's elections, polls here were in favor of requiring universal background checks across the country, in exchange for a CWL good in all 50 states. Imo a pipe dream if there ever was one.

They're now telling us how they'd be in favor of UBC's to the detriment of free states. Apparently not intelligent enough to look at history and see if they ever gained anything in the RKBA area from their fellow voters and legislators.

If they tried real horse trading, they'd end up with a cage full of white mice.
__________________
Tactical is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf

If I could live my life all over,
It wouldn't matter anyway,
'Cause I never could stay sober
On the Corpus Christi Bay. Robert Earl Keene

Heaven goes by favor.
If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in. Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-24-2019, 9:40 PM
Maverick237 Maverick237 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 26
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'd take UBC if it meant that records were destroyed upon confirmation that the firearm was legal to transfer AND if it meant that the Hughes' Amendment went into the trash so anyone who can pass a background check for a gun can purchase/transfer/be transferred a post-86 machine gun.

Hell I wouldn't even mind if we had to take a 'safety test' for the machine gun if it meant I could buy it.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-24-2019, 11:28 PM
R Dale R Dale is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,514
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rero360 View Post
I posted this idea on another board however that thread disappeared:

In exchange for UBC, we replace the current system with LiveScan, the system is already being used for other purposes and thus using it for gun purchases makes it impossible to link the livescan to a firearm, the government wonít know if you doing the livescan for a gun, a job, a security clearance or something else.

Additionally, we demand that the Sporting purpose section of the Ď86 FOPA get overturned, SBRs/SBSs and suppressors be removed from the NFA. Additionally, nationwide constitutional carry.
I see your point but we all know when the gov gets ready to confacate they will start with all the people that have had a live scan. once the confiscate order goes out no body will be able to use any gun on the list for any reason without being in serious trouble.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-26-2019, 9:58 AM
aklon's Avatar
aklon aklon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Leandro, Alameda County
Posts: 2,387
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

After passing a thorough - and I mean linked to mental health records thorough - background check, you automatically get a CCW.
__________________
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see."
- Arthur Schopenhaur
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-26-2019, 10:24 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 622
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Given all HIPPA laws in place - sharing such records is unlikely to be easy to do.

I actually do like some minimal training/proficiency requirement for CCW. If it is objective and non-discriminatory, I would prefer to know that armed people around me at least could demonstrate minimally safe gun handling skills, at least once. Way too many idiots.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 7:24 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.