Well That Makes One.....(Universal Background Checks)

So a common argument 2A supporters use against the enactment of universal background checks (aside from “shall not be infringed”) is that universal background checks would not have stopped any of the mass shooters in America’s history.

Well it was just a matter of time, before it happened, it appears the latest shooter in Odessa (latest info at this point in time) was not able to purchase a gun from an FFL because of background check flags (mental health issues), so he purchased it via private sale.

So now what? Does this one incident make the case for UBC’s?

My position and arguments are the same that they have been for all gun control laws and first is that none of them address the root causes of gun violence which is what we should be addressing. Criminal activity is the mass majority of gun deaths outside of suicide, suicide needs to be addressed as a mental health issue and the small percentage of mass shootings I chalk up to lack of humanity (different from mental sickness IMO).

Until we address these personality “defects” there will be murders and suicides just by other means (see the UK’s “knife” problem/“epidemic”).

Since guns are used far more often in the defense of life vs in the criminal taking of life (or crime) then the greater good guns bring far outweighs the negatives. And since a majority of UBC’s (if not all) don’t only apply to “sales” but any transfer (e.g. I may need to have and FFL do a BRC to loan my gun to one of my kids or wife at the range), then they are unreasonable IMO.

My final argument has always been that the 2nd Amendment was established by the founders to offer the citizenship an opportunity to defend itself against an oppressive government should one come to power (one only need look at the circumstance to come to that conclusion but there are several Articles of Confederation that back that position) and while I pray to God that day never comes, it’s important to remember that just because it’s unlikely it COULD happen and we need to have that card in the deck otherwise we may look like Syria, Hong Kong, Venezuela, etc, etc, etc.

So…what are your thoughts?


The only way UBC can be done, is with registering every gun owned by law abiding citizens. That has not worked out well in history.

They, in my opinion, are going for a total ban, without calling it a gun ban. I am sure buns will still be legal… (every time you make a typo, the errorsist win…)


Sadly, until there are ‘other alternatives’ to the use of firearms as a tool of accomplishing end of life choices - due to limited alternative outcomes - this aspect of mental health management will continue to be a significant number of attributable deaths to guns. Some States in the Union have undertaken the concept and legal process of assisted end of life options. In these communities, we should expect to see relevant changes in demographics.

None the less you make a lot of good sense. I take your last paragraph as relating and reinforcing the idea the population has the ability to form a militia to protect and defend the Constitution. Many of us, as like the People of Switzerland, believe the maintenance of a rifle and its equipage as a way to assist in this responsibility of Citizenship. By extension offering counter-argument to those who seek grounds to ban the 'ugly black gun.

1 Like




I agree with you on all of those things.


Just to play the devil’s advocate concerning Universal Background Checks, what if they were only applied to actual transfers of ownership (or constructive ownership) between unrelated parties? That would allow for “legacy” transfers within a family and for temporary loans between friends.

Speaking for myself, I would not sell, gift, or otherwise transfer ownership of a firearm to an unrelated person without going through an FFL. I consider that to be a layer of protection for me should issues concerning that firearm ever come up in the future. To my mind it is similar to being a USCCA member.


I’m not a fan of government interference in small transactions, but if they were to limit it to that and allowed for legacy transfers and loans (without a ridiculous time constraint like 24hrs) AND…it were in conjunction with a consideration from their side (e.g. National Carry reciprocity) I might be open to type of restriction.


We were just talking about that in the office, @JamesR.

Would we be willing to do a background check on someone for $10 online if we’re selling private party to private party? It would be an extra layer of protection if the gun was ever used in the commission of a crime, but that would also make all gun transactions registered… Hmmm… :thinking:

I like your twist to it - would we do that if it was in conjunction with National Reciprocity?


Fred_G, no it hasn’t worked out well, at all. Also, I’m probably going to steal your last sentence next time I catch myself with a typo. That is HILARIOUS to me! Thanks for making my day.


How did I miss this? @Terry7 thanks for pointing it out! @Fred_G, you win the pun of the week award!!!


UBC is a slippery slope. Say UBC passes. Private Party A opts to sell a weapon purchased prior to its passage to Party B without the requisite check. Party B uses the weapon in a crime which resulted in the weapon’s recover. ATF traces the weapon to Party A. Party A admits the sale and is charged. Party B has already committed his crime. Legislators lament that despite Party A’s exposure to criminal consequences, that he sold the weapon to Party B who went on to use it to commit a crime. Legislators cry that current UBC law is simply not working, so confiscation is the only answer. ATF develops a provisional registry based on historical 4473 sales, and the knocks, or not, come to your home looking for anything that the provisional registry has determined ties back to you.

Does ATF come to “chat”? Do they come with a search warrant? Gun previously stolen? Too bad. Sold private treaty prior to enactment of confiscation law? Too bad. Legal fees, repairs to your domicile, you and your family placed in hand cuffs “for your protection” during the search. After all, weapons violators are all potentially dangerous. Too bad. A slippery slope. And so it goes…


Great points!!!


I love the errorists… I don’t normally point out typos, I make plenty of them myself. the 'Bun Ban" was just too hard to pass up. :grinning:


Why should we have to pay the government, and get government approval to sell our private property to another citizen?

This is a “feel good”, “we have to do something”, foot in the door deal. If we give in to it, the anti gun folks will then say it is not enough (because we all know it will not stop gun crimes). Then we will need to “do something else”.

I don’t have a problem using an ffl to sell or buy a gun over the internet, but why should I pay for face to face sales? What other right do we have to pay for to exercise? Again, this is trying to write and enforce laws based on what someone might, or might not do in the future.

Having had some personal experience that is not much different than that, and been near enough to other experiences like it, I’m going to call your scenario prescient. That is how it will be used. Say hello to full registration and searches without probable cause.

100% of that. Right there ^^^

If we keep negotiating away an inch and then another inch in the search to have those who despise us finally give us a thumbs up on “being reasonable”, we will lose it all.

Only when we have given up every last inch will they agree we’re being reasonable.

You have to decide … how much will you yield in search of approval from those who hate us? How much will you willingly give away to have those who hate what we stand for find us “reasonable”?

I believe we have to stand our ground now, or we will have no ground to stand at all.


Best one I’ve seen in a long, long time. Thanks.

1 Like

Interesting turn of events…thanks for the update…guess we’ll have to see what the final facts are.

So much for criminals following the law…oh wait…they never have…that’s why we call them criminals…which is why attempting to address this legislatively doesn’t make sense.


I don’t suppose any of us were expecting objective reporting from CNN, now were we?


We just had the conversation in the office, @JamesR, about the purchase being illegal and that criminals are going to do what they want no matter what the laws are. :confused:


I saw this a while back, kinda fits humor wise about gun laws. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYL0yN110go :grinning: