NRA Was 'Foreign Asset' To Russia Ahead of 2016, New Senate Report Reveals

[GMDino]

(10-03-2019, 09:30 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So I think here is where the hangup occurs. It is illegal to sell, or even give, a firearm to someone that is not legally allowed to own one. I believe this is the law in every state. However, in many states if a transaction is between two individuals, there is no requirement for a background check to be conducted. So the question then becomes how can we enforce the law about providing a firearm to someone illegally if there is no sure way for them to know that the transfer was illegal? Should we not hold people accountable if they transfer a firearm to someone that is not legally allowed to own one?

This is where the idea of universal background checks does fill a gap in the law. Criminals will acquire their firearms illegally, we know that. They acquire them from people that are not dealers and therefore often don't need to conduct any sort of background check under the law. To hold those people accountable, instituting a universal background check law would mean that there is a mechanism of accountability in place.

It isn't a perfect solution. It isn't going to fix everything. However, it is something that can be used to help enforce existing laws.

The problem is Matt that the "they'll never take my my guns" crowd have turned the argument into it must be perfect or there's no sense doing it.

Anything that might help a "little" won't help "enough" so why even bother?  And if it might help "enough" it might be a "slippery slope" to more gun control and then why even bother.

And from what I read and hear the majority of legal gun owners do support things like a universal background check but it's the noisy ones that fight it and they are the ones being heard in Washington.