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 09-10-2019, 7:31 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 1,242
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Joe Manchin: Most Gun Owners Support Bill to Expand Background Checks

Most gun owners support bill to expand background checks, Manchin says

Quote:
..."I can assure you the bill ... has over 85 percent approval and that's with gun owners and everyone else saying if you go to a commercial transaction, gun show, or on the Internet, don't you think you ought to know who wants to buy that gun and for what purpose and what their background is? That's all we're talking about," he said on "America's Newsroom."...

"I said, 'Mr. President, there's not a person I know in America who believes Donald Trump will infringe on their Second Amendment rights or take their guns away or allow a registry to happen.' We're not going to do that at all, none of us. Without his support, I don't think anything moves," said Manchin...
With Senate Republicans saying they are waiting for Trump to let them know what he will support and, now, with Manchin pointing to Trump, the strategy seems to be to impose new gun laws, then blame Trump when the NRA and other pro-gun people complain.

It's never been about creating a gun registry the moment they create universal background checks. It's about UBC being the mechanism they will utilize to create background checks. Any legislation passed now can be altered when Democrats regain control.

I'm always suspicious when even a moderate Democrat offers something claimed to be 'reasonable' and I do so get tired of Republicans 'compromising' in the interest of a greater purpose; i.e., not allowing Democrats to be elected. (See Texas Lt. Governor's rationale.) Either way, our rights continue to be whittled away.

Of course, given that Nancy Pelosi is 'visibly angry'... I guess the Senate is just going to have to do... something.

Then again, based on an USA Today poll that came out a couple of days ago...

Quote:
Lanae Erickson, senior vice president of Third Way, a center-left group that backs bipartisan gun control, calls support among Republicans for universal background checks "wide but not deep."

“It’s not a major priority for almost any Republican voter who supports it, and the minority who oppose it viciously hate the idea," she said. "That’s a strong incentive not to go out on a limb here, at least for the bulk of Republicans who can win with just their base."

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 09-10-2019 at 7:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-10-2019, 7:41 PM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 2,897
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I can assure you he is full of bovine excrement.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-10-2019, 7:45 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 1,242
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epaphroditus View Post
I can assure you he is full of bovine excrement.
They think they've got a poll that supports the claim and they're pushing it to the nth degree.

Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-10-2019, 8:04 PM
PaDanby PaDanby is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 16
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Out of all gun owners in the US?

He's probably correct in saying "most". You only need 51%. Plus almost all transactions require a check already for almost every transfer. Out side of a a minority of states that allow PPT without checks, how many does it really affect? Not many, hence most owners don't care. Remember, the vast majority of owners aren't in the NRA, State Associations, shooting hobbies, etc. This won't bother them.

Being as this is CA, it nominally doesn't affect us either. NOTE I said "nominally." based on our laws, inability to easily sell to a friends of relative, loan to people, etc.

Now if they start throwing a lot of additional requirements, I suspect that support will rapidly dwindle.

Or are a lot of owners thinking that checks just mean an MICS check and that they still won't have waiting periods, or that your check comes back in 3 days or it doesn't matter.

If "Background Checks" Means 10 day waiting periods, adding in extra requirements to the 4473, adding non-judicial inputs and nebulous mental holds or domestic violence or reported threats, then gunowners will not support them, and I doubt the Senate will.

Now, if they make it like most civilized states, I pass an immediate NICS check and I can leave with the gun here in CA, I bet almost all gunowners would support those checks.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-12-2019, 2:49 PM
DevilDawgJJ's Avatar
DevilDawgJJ DevilDawgJJ is offline
Pitbull Apologist
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 1,432
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaDanby View Post
Now, if they make it like most civilized states, I pass an immediate NICS check and I can leave with the gun here
in CA, I bet almost all gunowners would support those checks.
NO! Background checks don't do ****. FACT! I don't support them on principle.

Recently here in SoCal, some guy was arrested for rape he committed decades ago. His sister did 23 and me. Cops hit his familial DNA and was arrested. Guess what he did for a living all those years? Teacher. Schools have....yup, background checks.

Thousands of stories like this. BG is a snapshot in time. You're good, until your not.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLIGHT762 View Post
Can I bring my Donkey? He loves Chunky Monkey.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-13-2019, 9:09 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 13,349
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaDanby View Post
Out of all gun owners in the US?

He's probably correct in saying "most". You only need 51%. Plus almost all transactions require a check already for almost every transfer. Out side of a a minority of states that allow PPT without checks, how many does it really affect? Not many, hence most owners don't care. Remember, the vast majority of owners aren't in the NRA, State Associations, shooting hobbies, etc. This won't bother them.

Being as this is CA, it nominally doesn't affect us either. NOTE I said "nominally." based on our laws, inability to easily sell to a friends of relative, loan to people, etc.

Now if they start throwing a lot of additional requirements, I suspect that support will rapidly dwindle.

Or are a lot of owners thinking that checks just mean an MICS check and that they still won't have waiting periods, or that your check comes back in 3 days or it doesn't matter.

If "Background Checks" Means 10 day waiting periods, adding in extra requirements to the 4473, adding non-judicial inputs and nebulous mental holds or domestic violence or reported threats, then gunowners will not support them, and I doubt the Senate will.

Now, if they make it like most civilized states, I pass an immediate NICS check and I can leave with the gun here in CA, I bet almost all gunowners would support those checks.
Having spent (and continuing to) a fair amount of time in those "free states" I can state with certainty that is not true. Believe it or not, in most states the practice of lending, selling or transferring "person to person" is alive and well. They have no desire to see things change. And one of those changes under UBC would be a prohibition on 18 to 20 year olds, including present and former service members defending our country, from legally acquiring a handgun for self-defense in the home, a basic tenet of Heller. No one should be happy to see that happen.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-15-2019, 9:30 PM
PaDanby PaDanby is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 16
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Obviously people can't read in context. 51% of all gunowners. Not 51% of politically active gunowners. All. To them, they make sense. The politically active, the politically astute, people paying attention, not, not most of them. But those aren't the ones he and I were talking about . All

And when I was talking about CA gun owners, I didn't mean guys in other states, that's why I said CA gun owners. This is after all a CA based forum. If I wanted irrelevant commentary on your state, I would have asked for it. But since we are talking about CA, I was speaking about CA.

How many places and transactions don't require at least a minimal check?

If you really and truly believe all the gloom and doom forecasted, why aren't you in the streets already. If you are convinced it is coming, and you are too late. Why haven't you gone out in a blaze of glory?

Based on the normal reaction to Californians from gun owenrs in other states, well yeah, I'd trade a significantly better regime for us, compared to a slightly worse regime for everybody else. Or do you really think your legislators aren't going to save you. If a Fed law comes though, which it isn't very likely, it should be the same for all of us, and I doubt it will be bad. If it is, don't blame us, blame the people you voted for.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-16-2019, 1:49 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 1,242
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaDanby View Post
And when I was talking about CA gun owners, I didn't mean guys in other states, that's why I said CA gun owners. This is after all a CA based forum. If I wanted irrelevant commentary on your state, I would have asked for it. But since we are talking about CA, I was speaking about CA.

How many places and transactions don't require at least a minimal check?
A couple of things to consider...

First, this may be a California based forum, but you are in the section entitled "National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion." NATIONAL. That means we are looking at, you are going to get, and should be expecting to receive input, not just from California, but "other states" as well. So, the commentary is not 'irrelevant.' It is, in fact, invited so as to create a more complete picture rather than simply basing it off the perceptions of and the happenings in California.

Remember also that, as you peruse this forum, many members are not from California. Many others are looking to 'escape' from California. This means that while the site focuses on California and its issues, it does not do so to the exclusion of other states. For some, California serves as a warning; the canary in the coal mine, so to speak. For some, it's about getting a sense for the attitudes and direction of politics in other regions. Then, for others, it is simply nice to know that there are still places where things are more what they used to be and Californians still wish it was than the increasing government control we have in this State.

In addition to all of that, there are members here who reside in both California and another state; or, at least, they own property in both or work in one, live in another, etc. Thus, they are in an unique position to provide some insight into how things are 'elsewhere' compared to what we now have in California.

Speaking of which... Second... You might be surprised how many places don't have what you declare to be a 'minimal check' on certain types of 'transactions.' If you're old enough to remember, there was a time in California (not all that long ago to many of us) when there were not 'minimal checks' on the same types of transactions. Likewise, Constitutional Carry is now the norm in many states and that movement is still attempting to expand; meaning that, in some locations, no 'license' is required, meaning no 'minimal check' is involved.

As a case in point, Joe Manchin (check the thread title) is a Senator from West Virginia. He is referencing a national poll; not strictly a California one. Manchin is one of the players now involved in the background checks legislation which Trump has noted specifically... Trump has 'encouraging' call with bipartisan Senate negotiators on gun control While such a bill may or may not impact us in California based on what we already have in place, one still needs to keep abreast of what is happening nationally; particularly given that, if California already has it in place, what are you looking to TRADE???

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaDanby
So you wouldn't trade what we have now for a national standard check? Pass the NICS and leave with the gun? You like the10 Day waiting period? or the one gun every 30 Days rules?
Remember, states are allowed to craft, implement, and enforce laws separate from the Federal Government. When it comes to something like 'gun laws,' if the Federal Government does not, legally, "occupy" the entirety of that area of law, a state can 'fill the void.' This is why we have differing waiting periods (which is a distinctly separate issue from background checks), variable standards in terms of may vs. shall issue, limitations on numbers of purchases in a given time frame, etc.

There is no guarantee that "a national standard check" would, could, or should be written so as to legally preempt all state standards. In fact, it is more likely that it won't be and that many, if not most, states would resist such an effort if for no other reasons than 'state's rights.' As I already pointed out to you, there's also the very real possibility that any 'national standard check' will be utilized as what many 'gun grabbers' have to declared to be a necessary step in their quest for gun confiscation. Not to mention, as others have observed, there is no incentive for residents of other states to restrict their liberties so that you might get back some of your liberties in a state intent upon taking even more of those liberties.

So... Once again... If you are going to talk about a 'national standard check,' what are you, as a Californian, thinking you are going to 'trade' to 'get?' What are you thinking that residents of other states, which do not have anywhere near the restrictions California does, are going to be willing to trade in exchange for the same 'national standard check?'

Think their input is irrelevant? Good luck. California may have the largest population, but it is still only ONE state out of fifty. Therefore, when you talk about a 'national standard check,' it might behoove you to 'think outside the box' which is California.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 09-16-2019 at 3:10 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-10-2019, 8:34 PM
Dan_Eastvale's Avatar
Dan_Eastvale Dan_Eastvale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 2,072
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Utah gun owners support less gun control. Guns here are a matter of fact..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-12-2019, 11:17 AM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 5,035
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_Eastvale View Post
Utah gun owners support less gun control. Guns here are a matter of fact..
Yes, and the entire state of UT has the same population as OC. Big deal. If you got EVERY voter in the states of UT, MT and ID TOGETHER they'd still be outnumbered by LA county 2 to 1.
PEOPLE vote. LAND doesn't
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-12-2019, 1:51 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 689
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
Yes, and the entire state of UT has the same population as OC. Big deal. If you got EVERY voter in the states of UT, MT and ID TOGETHER they'd still be outnumbered by LA county 2 to 1.
PEOPLE vote. LAND doesn't
Thankfully, founders of this country understood the danger of such a populist view.

Land does vote in US.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-12-2019, 2:14 PM
MrFancyPants's Avatar
MrFancyPants MrFancyPants is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 526
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
Yes, and the entire state of UT has the same population as OC. Big deal. If you got EVERY voter in the states of UT, MT and ID TOGETHER they'd still be outnumbered by LA county 2 to 1.

PEOPLE vote. LAND doesn't
So what is your point? The only thing your stats prove is OC and LA county are overcrowded ****holes. Or are you with the Hitlery crowd and saying to hell with the electoral college? Fortunately for us the founding fathers had infinitely more wisdom than you ever will.

The fact that UT has 10% of the population of CA is one of the main reasons we moved here, to get away from you idiots.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-18-2019, 6:24 AM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,227
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFancyPants View Post
So what is your point? The only thing your stats prove is OC and LA county are overcrowded ****holes. Or are you with the Hitlery crowd and saying to hell with the electoral college? Fortunately for us the founding fathers had infinitely more wisdom than you ever will.

The fact that UT has 10% of the population of CA is one of the main reasons we moved here, to get away from you idiots.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Unfortunately you can't get away from the idiots by moving g to another state when it comes to federal law.

I have posted all kinds of stats on demographics and why we need to reverse immigration, both legal and illegal as well as chain migration and the vitriol and shoot the messenger mentality from everyone who had left California was unbelievable. I want to leave too but I understand you cant run. California's house seats and electoral college votes effectively render yours useless, the liberals know this and they are using the Republicans love of cheap labor to change Utahs demographics too.

Utah was sued by Obama for allowing illegals to drive before another state, even California. I know the next thing people will say, I dont love in SLC, well the dems k now that they dont need the whole state, just the population center. The dems may be sick but the leaders are not stupid.

The only chance we have of fixing this is massive deportations and end chain migration for ever.
__________________
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Union...70812799700206

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wherryj View Post
I am a physician. I am held to being "the expert" in medicine. I can't fall back on feigned ignorance and the statement that the patient should have known better than I. When an officer "can't be expected to know the entire penal code", but a citizen is held to "ignorance is no excuse", this is equivalent to ME being able to sue my patient for my own malpractice-after all, the patient should have known better, right?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-13-2019, 10:11 PM
Dan_Eastvale's Avatar
Dan_Eastvale Dan_Eastvale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 2,072
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
Yes, and the entire state of UT has the same population as OC. Big deal. If you got EVERY voter in the states of UT, MT and ID TOGETHER they'd still be outnumbered by LA county 2 to 1.

PEOPLE vote. LAND doesn't
I grew up in Anaheim. OC. I went to Mel Gauer Elementary, Brookhurst Junior High and Savanna High ...Go Rebels... Class of 69..And UC Irvine class of 73..
I brought my conservative OC ideologies with me to Utah..
There are still those in my age group that grew up with me in CA and still live in CA that think the same way.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-13-2019, 10:51 PM
Widdle's Avatar
Widdle Widdle is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 820
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
Yes, and the entire state of UT has the same population as OC. Big deal. If you got EVERY voter in the states of UT, MT and ID TOGETHER they'd still be outnumbered by LA county 2 to 1.
PEOPLE vote. LAND doesn't
Those less populated states saved our butts from Hillary. Show some respect. They all get 2 electoral votes per senator, and at least 1 electoral vote from a rep. Their votes end up “counting” more, per capita.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-10-2019, 8:36 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,948
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

That 85% statistic with GOP is bull****. Once you explain to people what universal background checks are those numbers drop drastically. I think 60% of Americans supporting background checks is a pretty reasonable number to assume. Pollsters ask super broad questions with no explanation of what they are asking and then report the results as factual. Fake as hell.

Trump signs universal background checks and he will lose 2020. Simple as that.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-10-2019, 8:57 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 13,349
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

What happened to "the only poll that counts is the one on elections day"? And on election day in WA, NV, ME and a few other states when UBC was on the ballot the end result was about a 50 - 50 split. Are we supposed to believe that the +35% of people who support UBC decided to stay home and all those opposed just happened to vote?

The "85% support" ruse is ample and demonstrable evidence that the anti-gunners deliberately distract and deceive. Using it proves they can't make the case honestly. It's the political equivalent of Ted Kennedy's "I took a wrong turn" and those of us familiar with the landscape know the lie.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-11-2019, 3:06 PM
riderr riderr is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,102
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

It appears the background check legislation has gained enough support from GOP to become a law, when combined with DEM. Also, Trump will unlikely veto it.
I also understand no poison pill (like CCW reciprocity) will be added to this legislation this time.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-11-2019, 3:36 PM
Scratch705's Avatar
Scratch705 Scratch705 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 11,445
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by riderr View Post
It appears the background check legislation has gained enough support from GOP to become a law, when combined with DEM. Also, Trump will unlikely veto it.
I also understand no poison pill (like CCW reciprocity) will be added to this legislation this time.
someone should add "abolishment of the NFA" to the UBC bill.

that should kill off UBC real quick.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by leelaw View Post
Because -ohmigosh- they can add their opinions, too?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalSig1911 View Post
Preppers canceled my order this afternoon because I called them a disgrace... Not ordering from those clowns again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrepperGunShop View Post
Truthfully, we cancelled your order because of your lack of civility and your threats ... What is a problem is when you threaten my customer service team and make demands instead of being civil. Plain and simple just don't be an a**hole (where you told us to shove it).
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-11-2019, 3:39 PM
riderr riderr is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,102
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scratch705 View Post
someone should add "abolishment of the NFA" to the UBC bill.

that should kill off UBC real quick.
I doubt GOP will introduce any poison pill to the bill. Dems will go hysterical on this. GOP really wants to calm down the wave before the election year
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-13-2019, 11:26 AM
Lifeisgood Lifeisgood is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 161
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by riderr View Post
Dems will go hysterical on this.
They are already hysterical.

How about
""Do you support offering federal incentives for states to pass "red flag" or "extreme risk" laws that allow courts to temporarily take Medical Marijuana Cards away from people suspected of being a danger to the public or themselves?

How about some incentives for open and conceled carry?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-11-2019, 3:09 PM
the_tunaman's Avatar
the_tunaman the_tunaman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 704
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

They say it enough times and eventually many believe it as fact.

How many here have participated in any poll? I certainly haven’t been asked, nor has anyone I know.

“Common sense” ain’t so common...
__________________
MAGA - drain the swamp^D^D^D^D^Dcesspool!
Proud deplorable wacist!
#NotMyStateGovernment!
Just remember BAMN - there is no level too low for them to stoop!
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-11-2019, 3:43 PM
dogrunner dogrunner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: E/Central Fl
Posts: 163
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I grew up in the same small W.Va town Manchin is from and I can assure you that he is a fraud of the first order. Apparently he had zero credible opposition for the office and that and his money is how he managed to get elected.

Insofar as his home town constituency goes I can also assure you that if there is any support for 'gun control'. the figures would be somewhere in the negative numericals.

West Virginians took back their right to arms after over seventy years of oppressive legislation that for all purposes forbade any carry of sidearms.........even for hunting or casual target practice........something that grew out of the coal mine wars of the 1920's...........Those laws actually make current Cal. carry laws look good..............The State of West Virginia is today constitutional carry, and one sure way to get unelected is to advocate gun control................hopefully that is Manchin's fate.

Last edited by dogrunner; 09-11-2019 at 3:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-11-2019, 5:22 PM
audiophil2 audiophil2 is online now
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Surprise
Posts: 7,737
iTrader: 232 / 100%
Default

polls like this are why we are a republic and not a democracy. keeps idiot majority from screwing themselves over.
__________________

01FFL/03SOT AND 07FFL/02SOT
PHOENIX, AZ MIDDLEMAN TRANSFER DEALER SINCE 2010
10 round magazine conversion service
CA compliance service
Machine gun/suppressor rentals
Private 10 acre range rentals
Storage for your CA firearms/CA prohibited firearm purchases.

MY CALGUNS COMMERCIAL SALES SUBFORUM
https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...play.php?f=376
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-11-2019, 9:10 PM
MrFancyPants's Avatar
MrFancyPants MrFancyPants is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 526
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
if you go to a commercial transaction, gun show, or on the Internet, don't you think you ought to know who wants to buy that gun and for what purpose and what their background is?
Out here, the only question dealers ask is if I have a CWP. If not, they do a quick NICS check to make sure I'm not a prohibited person. They never ask what I want to use the gun for and what my background is. Anybody who wants to ask that can **** off since it's none of their damn business.

Private party sales are legal here in Utah without FFL intervention, and generally the only thing most sellers want to see is a valid CWP, which proves the buyer has passed a criminal background check already. Again, they don't need to know anything else.

So no Mr D-bag, I don't think sellers "ought to know" jack **** about the buyers as long as they meet the legal requirements to buy a gun in their state of residence.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-12-2019, 1:53 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 689
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFancyPants View Post
Private party sales are legal here in Utah without FFL intervention, and generally the only thing most sellers want to see is a valid CWP, which proves the buyer has passed a criminal background check already. Again, they don't need to know anything else.
That is a UBC right there, voluntary enforced.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-12-2019, 1:55 PM
The War Wagon's Avatar
The War Wagon The War Wagon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: da' 'BURGH
Posts: 5,991
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Angry

STAY in WV, in-bred boy.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-12-2019, 11:01 AM
aklon's Avatar
aklon aklon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Leandro, Alameda County
Posts: 2,443
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Unless you break through the 'privacy' laws surrounding mental health records and include them in any background check, what's the point of it all?

In fact, none. No UBC of any kind is going to stop crime and criminals, so what's the point of that either?
__________________
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see."
- Arthur Schopenhaur
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-12-2019, 11:12 AM
Spaffo's Avatar
Spaffo Spaffo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 552
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Even if the poll is correct, UBC is still wrong and useless.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-12-2019, 11:31 PM
PaDanby PaDanby is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 16
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So you wouldn't trade what we have now for a national standard check? Pass the NICS and leave with the gun? You like the10 Day waiting period? or the one gun every 30 Days rules?

What are the realistic chances that a standard national check is worse than or better than what we have in CA now??
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 09-12-2019, 11:55 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 1,242
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaDanby View Post
What are the realistic chances that a standard national check is worse than... what we have in CA now??
Actually, there is very real potential for it being much, much worse. It's the proverbial camel's nose under the tent.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-13-2019, 10:22 AM
madjack956's Avatar
madjack956 madjack956 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The mountains of Arizona
Posts: 2,534
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaDanby View Post
So you wouldn't trade what we have now for a national standard check? Pass the NICS and leave with the gun? You like the10 Day waiting period? or the one gun every 30 Days rules?

What are the realistic chances that a standard national check is worse than or better than what we have in CA now??
The chances are huge it will be worse in my state. We don't need to give up any freedoms in free states, so you can try and claw back what you have already lost.

Besides CA will never let you leave with the gun no matter what other laws pass.
__________________
Paralyzed Veterans of America www.pva.org
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-13-2019, 11:49 AM
Widdle's Avatar
Widdle Widdle is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 820
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaDanby View Post
So you wouldn't trade what we have now for a national standard check? Pass the NICS and leave with the gun? You like the10 Day waiting period? or the one gun every 30 Days rules?

What are the realistic chances that a standard national check is worse than or better than what we have in CA now??
No. I would not like it if we Californians got it ďeasierĒ at the expense of the good folk in other states who now have it less bad than us. Nope, not at all. We need less government, not more.


Iím 100% against background checks, lists, registries, etc. I donít even see the point of showing ID. Canít those be faked pretty easily?

Thumb print...yay, thanks for letting me do some finger painting, mom!
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-13-2019, 12:55 AM
Howie44's Avatar
Howie44 Howie44 is offline
C3 Specialist
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Free America
Posts: 1,754
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Polls done by USA today.
I call bul****.....
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-13-2019, 9:14 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 14,228
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Aren't these the same polling outfits that predicted Hillary would be president?
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 09-13-2019, 9:34 AM
Dan_Eastvale's Avatar
Dan_Eastvale Dan_Eastvale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 2,072
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Where are these polling locations? I have never seen gun legislation opinion polls for the general population, much less gun owners...
Neither here in Utah or in California...

Where are these "gun owners"?
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-13-2019, 10:11 AM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 2,904
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I have never been asked about my views. So for the record. "Shall Not be Infringed"!!! No gun restrictions at all! To be clear.
__________________
Quote:
200 bullets at a time......
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/198981/life01.jpg

Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 09-13-2019, 10:28 AM
TOMBSTONE's Avatar
TOMBSTONE TOMBSTONE is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Occupied SoCal
Posts: 459
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default



The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, is all about saving lives and protecting people from harm—by not letting guns fall into the wrong hands. It also ensures the timely transfer of firearms to eligible gun buyers.

Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms. Before ringing up the sale, cashiers call in a check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isn’t otherwise ineligible to make a purchase. More than 230 million such checks have been made, leading to more than 1.3 million denials.

NICS is located at the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division in Clarksburg, West Virginia. It provides full service to FFLs in 30 states, five U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. Upon completion of the required Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Form 4473, FFLs contact the NICS Section via a toll-free telephone number or electronically on the Internet through the NICS E-Check System to request a background check with the descriptive information provided on the ATF Form 4473. NICS is customarily available 17 hours a day, seven days a week, including holidays (except for Christmas). I thought that we already did this with Form 4473 in California and the 10-day waiting period...

Last edited by TOMBSTONE; 09-13-2019 at 10:31 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-13-2019, 1:58 PM
dogrunner dogrunner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: E/Central Fl
Posts: 163
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TOMBSTONE View Post


The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, is all about saving lives and protecting people from harmóby not letting guns fall into the wrong hands. It also ensures the timely transfer of firearms to eligible gun buyers.

Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms. Before ringing up the sale, cashiers call in a check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isnít otherwise ineligible to make a purchase. More than 230 million such checks have been made, leading to more than 1.3 million denials.

NICS is located at the FBIís Criminal Justice Information Services Division in Clarksburg, West Virginia. It provides full service to FFLs in 30 states, five U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. Upon completion of the required Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Form 4473, FFLs contact the NICS Section via a toll-free telephone number or electronically on the Internet through the NICS E-Check System to request a background check with the descriptive information provided on the ATF Form 4473. NICS is customarily available 17 hours a day, seven days a week, including holidays (except for Christmas). I thought that we already did this with Form 4473 in California and the 10-day waiting period...

Yeah, works like a dream in Chicago and points in all directions therefrom!

The fact is that after some version of their current desire succeeds in passing, and also fails, we'll be off to the next dog and pony show of even more draconian regulations.

Besides, why are you shilling for the FBI?
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 09-13-2019, 6:24 PM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 11,431
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaDanby View Post
...Now, if they make it like most civilized states, I pass an immediate NICS check and I can leave with the gun here in CA, I bet almost all gunowners would support those checks.
The states we moved to 30 or so years ago are definitely "civilized", and in many ways far more "civilized" than California.

You are completely incorrect in thinking that "almost all" gun owners in free states will support pre-purchase background checks.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Widdle View Post
No. I would not like it if we Californians got it “easier” at the expense of the good folk in other states who now have it less bad than us. Nope, not at all. We need less government, not more.

I’m 100% against background checks, lists, registries, etc. I don’t even see the point of showing ID. Can’t those be faked pretty easily?

Thumb print...yay, thanks for letting me do some finger painting, mom!
Widdle, that's a refreshing response coming from California...nice work. Many here feel it's OK to screw free states with more firearms legal "requirements", thinking they'll get something in return if they do. Perfect examples are 2 polls here prior to FBHO's presidential elections...~ half of those responding said they'd trade mandatory background checks for the country in return for CWL reciprocity. Definitely stupid as CWL's currently are a states' right issue.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_Eastvale View Post
Utah gun owners support less gun control. Guns here are a matter of fact..
Same in Idaho...current Idaho law prohibits state and local pd's from enforcing federal gun laws.

Idaho can get a couple thousand gun owners (with guns) to show up on the Capitol steps to present their views. Not only that, they tend to show up at the polls and vote. Compare that to California.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PaDanby View Post
So you wouldn't trade what we have now for a national standard check? Pass the NICS and leave with the gun? You like the10 Day waiting period? or the one gun every 30 Days rules?

What are the realistic chances that a standard national check is worse than or better than what we have in CA now??
I would not trade what I have now for a national background check, and why should I? No waiting period and no limit on guns per day, week, month, or year. Why would I want to give that up?


Quote:
Originally Posted by madjack956 View Post
The chances are huge it will be worse in my state. We don't need to give up any freedoms in free states, so you can try and claw back what you have already lost.

Besides CA will never let you leave with the gun no matter what other laws pass.
^^^ /Thread...not to mention nonsensical thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogrunner View Post
Yeah, works like a dream in Chicago and points in all directions therefrom!

The fact is that after some version of their current desire succeeds in passing, and also fails, we'll be off to the next dog and pony show of even more draconian regulations.

Besides, why are you shilling for the FBI?
The fact remains that criminals know where to buy guns off the beaten / "legal" path.

Given that DOJ estimates only 10% of "assault" weapons were registered in the last two registration period, what makes you think that the same percentage, or close to it, thinks the same about non-"assault" long guns, or for that matter, handguns.?
__________________
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; 09-13-2019 at 9:15 PM..
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 2:37 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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 2002-2020, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.
Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Tactical Gear Military Boots 5.11 Tactical