A Libertarian Case for Expanding Gun Background Checks? I Am Still Waiting to Hear One. https://reason.com/2013/04/30/a-libertarian-case-for-expanding-gun-bac/
So? For all practical purposes you need one to actually operate it unless you are filthy rich and have your own private track.
That's too much and would be considered cruel and unusual in my opinion. It should fit the crime. Probably a felony misdemeanor charge with a massive fine or a one year sentence.
it goes with direct contradiction with what you said sooooooooooo............i pointed it out. Most guns are collectors items. If a heirloom car was passed down it is unlikely to get the kid to school.
Well then in that case that firearm will always be locked up in a display or something and not used in public where it can be used in a crime that can then be traced back to the person handing it over. The enforcement part only occurs after the fact. The incentive is to not take on the risk.
Background checks aren't the problem. They make total sense. There are issues with other gun control measures put forward
Agreed. I think she’s completely delusional and should be in prison. At a minimum, she should not be holding public office.
"The House Just Approved Two Background Check Bills That Would Make an Unfair, Irrational Gun Policy Even Worse": https://reason.com/2021/03/12/the-h...e-an-unfair-irrational-gun-policy-even-worse/ excerpt: The House of Representatives yesterday approved two bills that would require background checks for nearly all firearm transfers and dramatically increase the amount of time allowed to complete those checks. Both changes would impose substantial new burdens on law-abiding gun owners and unjustly deny people their Second Amendment rights without doing much of anything to frustrate criminals. H.R. 8, a.k.a the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021, would make it a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison, to complete a gun transfer unless it involves a federally licensed dealer. Under current law, such dealers are required to conduct background checks to see if would-be buyers are legally disqualified from owning guns. This bill would extend that requirement to private transfers, except for "loan or "bona fide gift" between close relatives when "the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee" falls into a prohibited category. The bill, which was supported by 219 Democrats and eight Republicans, aims to "ensure [that] individuals prohibited from gun purchase or possession are not able to obtain firearms." But it assuredly would not do that, since criminals already evade background checks by buying guns on the black market or through straw purchasers, and the people who supply them are unlikely to be deterred by an additional layer of illegality. To the extent that a uniform background check requirement actually blocks sales, it will mainly affect buyers who pose no threat to public safety. Federal law prohibits gun possession by absurdly broad categories of people, including anyone with a felony record, no matter the nature of the offense or how long ago it happened; anyone who has ever undergone involuntary psychiatric treatment, whether or not he was ever deemed a danger to others; and cannabis consumers, even in states that have legalized mar1juana. A 2004 report from the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General gives you a sense of the gun buyers who tend to be flagged by background checks. The report looked at what happens when people who buy guns later turn out to be disqualified. Under current law, the FBI has three business days to process background checks—which makes the name of that program, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), something of a misnomer. After three business days, the dealer is allowed to complete the sale even without a response. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is therefore sometimes charged with retrieving guns from people who took possession of them before it was discovered that they were not allowed to own them. The inspector general found that "ATF special agents did not consider most of the prohibited persons who had obtained guns to be dangerous and therefore did not consider it a priority to retrieve the firearm promptly." If these people are not actually dangerous, you might wonder, why were they stripped of their Second Amendment rights to begin with? Even if all gun owners complied with the inconvenient and expensive requirement that they enlist a federally licensed dealer whenever they sell their firearms (a highly doubtful proposition, given the experience in states with similar rules), the main effect would be to compound the injustice of denying people who have never demonstrated any violent tendencies the right to armed self-defense. more at the link
