• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nevada UBGC looks like its not going to happen

Rucker61 said:
How does it prevent me or anyone from selling a gun to a felon? I own firearms purchased prior to any UBC requirements here that absolutely cannot be tied to me. The DOJ doesn't even believe that UBCs are effective.

Funny, the Colorado UBC law requires background checks for me to sell a gun to a CCW holder, a law enforcement officer, my best friend or even my wife. It even requires a background check for all members of a trust ahould a firearm he added to a trust. Know of many felons willing to tie their name to a gun they want to use in a crime in a legwl document? I thought a UBC was to prevent me from selling a gun to a felon?
Click to expand...

Up to you, like I said, whether you obey the law or not. Hey, I routinely ignore laws I disagree with. All I'm saying is what the law is meant to try to accomplish.
 
Grand Mal said:
Ah, so what. I don't know what the Brady Bill is, that's why I didn't mention it. I'm just talking about a law requiring background checks in private sales. Isn't that what the thread is about?
Same thing, though. As you describe it, that bill isn't intended to stop felons from buying guns, it's intended to stop licensed gun dealers from selling guns to felons. Am I right?
Click to expand...

And of the 34k felons caight by the Brady Bill NICS checks in 2010, 13 (13!) were found guilty of the felony committed while trying to buy a gun from an FFL. 13. That's a 0.02% success rate.
 
Grand Mal said:
Ah, so what. I don't know what the Brady Bill is, that's why I didn't mention it. I'm just talking about a law requiring background checks in private sales. Isn't that what the thread is about?
Same thing, though. As you describe it, that bill isn't intended to stop felons from buying guns, it's intended to stop licensed gun dealers from selling guns to felons. Am I right?
Click to expand...

the Brady bill required those who are allowed to engage in interstate commerce concerning firearms to conduct-through a government agency-background checks to make sure that the people who fill out the federal form 4473 are not lying on some questions that ask if they are "prohibited persons" such as if they are a felon, fugitive, under indictment etc.

Now if the background check determines they are a prohibited person, they have committed federal perjury because if they admit on form 4473 that they are a felon or a fugitive etc, the clerk won't even bother, he will say SORRY you cannot buy a gun.

according to mainly Democratic administrations, this law has "stopped" HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF FELONS FROM BUYING FIREARMS (from licensed dealers). yet in reality, only a few dozen have been prosecuted even though almost everyone DENIED can be charged with perjury. and of course, since few are prosecuted, there is no guarantee that they didn't find another source for firearms

even before the BB, few felons were willing to sign a form and thus committing perjury that would be added on to any other charge that would accrue if they were caught with a firearm. Thus most felons have always obtained firearms from people willing to sell or give them guns which -according to dozens of studies and interviews of felons-mostly involve family members, friends and criminal colleagues. NOT buying guns from private citizens they don't know who well could be informants, feds or state cops and who would be more than willing to testify against them if the cops showed up and said-Hey Dave, you are listed at Joe's Gun shop as having bought a Beretta 92 there on November 1, 2004 and we found this gun on a guy we just charged with felony assault and armed robbery. Now most private citizens will say -Yeah I sold that to him, I had no idea he has a record but I will testify that he did get the gun from me

as opposed to family friends who will claim it was stolen or taken without their knowledge etc
 
Rucker61 said:
And of the 34k felons caight by the Brady Bill NICS checks in 2010, 13 (13!) were found guilty of the felony committed while trying to buy a gun from an FFL. 13. That's a 0.02% success rate.
Click to expand...

Didn't I just say the law isn't intended to stop felons from buying guns? Read what I said.
The question about the bill is, did it stop licensed gun dealers from selling guns to felons. I don't know. I'm just saying that's what the law is intended for.
 
TurtleDude said:
the Brady bill required those who are allowed to engage in interstate commerce concerning firearms to conduct-through a government agency-background checks to make sure that the people who fill out the federal form 4473 are not lying on some questions that ask if they are "prohibited persons" such as if they are a felon, fugitive, under indictment etc.

Now if the background check determines they are a prohibited person, they have committed federal perjury because if they admit on form 4473 that they are a felon or a fugitive etc, the clerk won't even bother, he will say SORRY you cannot buy a gun.

according to mainly Democratic administrations, this law has "stopped" HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF FELONS FROM BUYING FIREARMS (from licensed dealers). yet in reality, only a few dozen have been prosecuted even though almost everyone DENIED can be charged with perjury. and of course, since few are prosecuted, there is no guarantee that they didn't find another source for firearms

even before the BB, few felons were willing to sign a form and thus committing perjury that would be added on to any other charge that would accrue if they were caught with a firearm. Thus most felons have always obtained firearms from people willing to sell or give them guns which -according to dozens of studies and interviews of felons-mostly involve family members, friends and criminal colleagues. NOT buying guns from private citizens they don't know who well could be informants, feds or state cops and who would be more than willing to testify against them if the cops showed up and said-Hey Dave, you are listed at Joe's Gun shop as having bought a Beretta 92 there on November 1, 2004 and we found this gun on a guy we just charged with felony assault and armed robbery. Now most private citizens will say -Yeah I sold that to him, I had no idea he has a record but I will testify that he did get the gun from me

as opposed to family friends who will claim it was stolen or taken without their knowledge etc
Click to expand...

Does the bill stop licensed gun dealers from selling guns to felons? That's the question. Doesn't matter if it stops felons from aquiring guns. If it stops them walking into a store and walking out armed, it's doing what it was intended to do.
Same as the requirement for private sales. Hopefully law-abiding people will do the jump-through-the-hoops thing.
Listen, I know how futile laws are at preventing criminals from commiting crimes. If I was criminal enough I'd probably steal the gun from whoever was advertising it for sale, if they were alone when I went to see the gun. Or whatever. Just that it's ridiculous to pretend that a background check is intended to make a felon put his hands in the air and say, "Oh, damn, there goes that idea!"
 
Grand Mal said:
Does the bill stop licensed gun dealers from selling guns to felons? That's the question. Doesn't matter if it stops felons from aquiring guns. If it stops them walking into a store and walking out armed, it's doing what it was intended to do.
Same as the requirement for private sales. Hopefully law-abiding people will do the jump-through-the-hoops thing.
Listen, I know how futile laws are at preventing criminals from commiting crimes. If I was criminal enough I'd probably steal the gun from whoever was advertising it for sale, if they were alone when I went to see the gun. Or whatever. Just that it's ridiculous to pretend that a background check is intended to make a felon put his hands in the air and say, "Oh, damn, there goes that idea!"
Click to expand...

that is the sort of word games the gun restrictionists engage in though I doubt you intended that

the gun banners claim that the brady bill has stopped THOUSANDS OF CRIMINALS from buying guns from dealers-it has

But has it stopped violent crime or even dented violent crime-not whatsoever and that is what counts. The public good is not advanced by preventing a felon from getting a gun (that not only can he be prosecuted for possessing but also because he lied on a form) from a licensed dealer if that felon ends up getting a gun anyway

In ENgland, they banned handguns as a silly response to one shooting. The Home secretary brayed a few years later that the law meant that not a SINGLE CRIME WAS COMMITTED WITH A LEGALLY OWNED PISTOL true because there no longer were any legally owned pistols by private citizens. Crime with handguns went up though so the dishonest politicians had to pretend that their idiotic gun ban did SOMETHING

smart people realize what a fraudulent bait and switch the British HS did

stupid people lapped it up
 
Rucker61 said:
Rather than dealing with cute sayings, address the actual issue. The DOJ says they are ineffective. We know that they don't affect straw purchaees, theft or sales of the millions of illegal guns already out there. We've had UBCs in Colorado for over three years. There hasn't been a single arrest for breaking that law.
Click to expand...

You know as well as I do that effect is directly related to effort.
 
jet57 said:
You know as well as I do that effect is directly related to effort.
Click to expand...

so the UBGCs are intended to hassle honest people since the government has no intent on actually going after criminals
 
jet57 said:
Felons gangster and cartel members are buying them NOW -WITHOUT UBCs!
Click to expand...

Correct, and they would continue to buy them without UBCs whether it is illegal or not. Quit being disingenuous.
 
countryboy said:
Correct, and they would continue to buy them without UBCs whether it is illegal or not. Quit being disingenuous.
Click to expand...

you'd think some of these posters have never studied, or are even aware of, Prohibition or the 50+ year war on drugs
 
TurtleDude said:
you'd think some of these posters have never studied, or are even aware of, Prohibition or the 50+ year war on drugs
Click to expand...

Jet knows perfectly well UBGs will have no effect on criminal activity, and only serve to harass law abiding citizens. Period, end of story. You and others have schooled him endlessly. I personally am not going to waste too much time on the grabbers beyond correcting them occasionally. It's a waste of time to try and debate with such dishonest people.
 
countryboy said:
Jet knows perfectly well UBGs will have no effect on criminal activity, and only serve to harass law abiding citizens. Period, end of story. You and others have schooled him endlessly. I personally am not going to waste too much time on the grabbers beyond correcting them occasionally. It's a waste of time to try and debate with such dishonest people.
Click to expand...

I have pretty well established that his main goal is making everyone else live under the idiotic restrictions he lives under in california. Rather than fight the idiotic laws of the socialist commune of California, Jet wants to make everyone who owns a gun equally miserable

did you know that if you have grandfathered normal capacity magazines, you must get rid of them or destroy them? Hasn't Jet and others told us no one wants to CONFISCATE what we already own. I sure how people push back against that idiocy to the point politicians realize how stupid that law is
 
TurtleDude said:
I have pretty well established that his main goal is making everyone else live under the idiotic restrictions he lives under in california. Rather than fight the idiotic laws of the socialist commune of California, Jet wants to make everyone who owns a gun equally miserable

did you know that if you have grandfathered normal capacity magazines, you must get rid of them or destroy them? Hasn't Jet and others told us no one wants to CONFISCATE what we already own. I sure how people push back against that idiocy to the point politicians realize how stupid that law is
Click to expand...

Doesn't that law violate ex post facto?
 
jet57 said:
Felons gangster and cartel members are buying them NOW -WITHOUT UBCs! The idea is to slow down the trafficking of illegal weapons isn't it? So, tell me how a road block doesn't create bottlenecks for all those attempting to pass through willy-nilly.

So, you also think that "felons and gangsters and cartel members should be able to just buy willy-nilly in private sales."

So, how would leaving all the avenues for illegal trade help the rest of us?
Click to expand...

Elvis has entered the building and hysterical paranoia ensued.

Jet I suggest you go down to your local precinct and offer your services in identifying felons and gangsters and cartel members. I'm pretty sure they would appreciate your expertise in putting these nasty people behind bars. Do report back here on how many you manage to identify correctly.

If your intent is to punish released felons who have completed their sentence then can you show that one very important right has not been striped from them - due process and the right to defend against such harsh and unusual punishments. No citizen should be deprived of rights without due process.
 
Rucker61 said:
Doesn't that law violate ex post facto?
Click to expand...

as well as the second amendment though some courts have held banning stuff in the future is ok. I would hope people refuse to obey such a law out there and cause a huge headache for the bannerrhoid politicians until Trump judges can slap California around
 
jet57 said:
Felons gangster and cartel members are buying them NOW -WITHOUT UBCs! The idea is to slow down the trafficking of illegal weapons isn't it? So, tell me how a road block doesn't create bottlenecks for all those attempting to pass through willy-nilly.

So, you also think that "felons and gangsters and cartel members should be able to just buy willy-nilly in private sales."

So, how would leaving all the avenues for illegal trade help the rest of us?
Click to expand...

Do you realize that they will use the same method to bypass a UBC as they already do? Do you even realize how most acquire illegal arms? Straw purchases. UBCs do not solve straw purchases. They will be gotten around the same way. The SAME way. How does the UBC solve the problem? It doesn't.

Tell you what: figure out a way to hammer straw purchasers and then you won't meet resistance. Especially since it is already a crime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
TurtleDude said:
as well as the second amendment though some courts have held banning stuff in the future is ok. I would hope people refuse to obey such a law out there and cause a huge headache for the bannerrhoid politicians until Trump judges can slap California around
Click to expand...

I know we keep hoping governments judges will do our work for us but imagine where woman, slaves, blacks, gays, HIV/aids....would be today if that was the best they could do. Hope for bread crumbs from government.

There is no such thing as a gun friendly government.
 
Last edited:
blackjack50 said:
Do you realize that they will use the same method to bypass a UBC as they already do? Do you even realize how most acquire illegal arms? Straw purchases. UBCs do not solve straw purchases. They will be gotten around the same way. The SAME way. How does the UBC solve the problem? It doesn't.

Tell you what: figure out a way to hammer straw purchasers and then you won't meet resistance. Especially since it is already a crime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting criminals will be rehabilitated or hindered in any way if straw purchases could be stopped. I think we have to bear the consequences of agreement and suggesting gun control as a solution to crime. Do we not know that does not work no matter how presented.

It really worries me when we should be fighting gun control we are instead suggesting it. This is what firearm organisations have taught us instead of opposition. We now try to behave like them and follow their fatal lead into acceptance and appeasement.

No fight can be won when your troops think the oppositions failed policy is correct if it was enforced.
 
Crimefree said:
Are you suggesting criminals will be rehabilitated or hindered in any way if straw purchases could be stopped. I think we have to bear the consequences of agreement and suggesting gun control as a solution to crime. Do we not know that does not work no matter how presented.

It really worries me when we should be fighting gun control we are instead suggesting it. This is what firearm organisations have taught us instead of opposition. We now try to behave like them and follow their fatal lead into acceptance and appeasement.

No fight can be won when your troops think the oppositions failed policy is correct if it was enforced.
Click to expand...

Dude. Straw purchasing is already illegal. It IS a crime. And it should be. People buying guns for felons? Not ok. Not to mention...it is the most common method of acquisition for criminals to get guns. So YES...we should be going after those criminal pieces of **** who hurt our gun rights.

We are all Americans. Citizens of our nation. So our goal should all be to increase the quality of life of our citizens. If we can reduce the number of guns going into the inner city hell holes, maintain or increase the number of armed law abiding citizens, and then continue to hammer on gangs and drugs and so on? We could actually reduce the crime rate, keep victims armed, and help everyone. You need to remember who the real bad guys are.
 
Grand Mal said:
Why are there laws against violent felons buying guns? Any idea?
Hey, I don't care. If you're okay with violent felons legally buying guns, have at it. Remove all restrictions if you want. I'm just saying why the law is in place.
Click to expand...

Not all felons are violent. Just because one is a felon doesn't mean that they are violent. This is the problem with the term "felon". Someone hears it and they automatically think "violent". Their brain automatically assumes the worse. And in conversations about gun control those that are pro-gun control almost always refer to felons that are violent. Always ignoring that there are many felons out there that are not violent. Yet they still believe that they shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. So, I don't believe for one second that its about "violence". It's about control.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Not all felons are violent. Just because one is a felon doesn't mean that they are violent. This is the problem with the term "felon". Someone hears it and they automatically think "violent". Their brain automatically assumes the worse. And in conversations about gun control those that are pro-gun control almost always refer to felons that are violent. Always ignoring that there are many felons out there that are not violent. Yet they still believe that they shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. So, I don't believe for one second that its about "violence". It's about control.
Click to expand...

If it were about violence, you wouldn't be disqualified by having had a dishonourable discharge. You're close with the word 'control', but also close to a subject that a lot of people don't want to look at. Are rights granted by the state, or are you born with them? If you were born with them, why did you give the state the power to take them away from you and tell you if and when and where you can have them back? Or maybe they weren't 'rights' until the state made them so.
It'sa can of worms...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom