sponsored by gabby giffords on the 8 year anniversary of her shooting
they are saying "97 percent of the country support background checks"

Can you post the link?

My google-fu showed its a water bill

Can you post the link?

My google-fu showed its a water bill

heads
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-dems-to-introduce-gun-backgrounds-checks-bill-on-tuesday/ar-BBROzSs?ocid=spartanntp

Interesting how that senator who got shot at the softball practice never introduced any infringements to the 2a.  Nor did anyone else at the practice due to the shooting.

Neither did the senator who was a high school student at the time of the Columbine shooting.

The diff, DNC vs. GOP.

Imagine if there was a party where day one they were introducing pro-gun bills?  Sad that I'll never see the day. 

Imagine if there was a party where day one they were introducing pro-gun bills?  Sad that I'll never see the day.

I would say more like a party who undo's infringing laws. 

Background checks for private party sales sounds good, but then you would need a registration to keep track of the guns.  And that don't fly with many states.

I would say more like a party who undo's infringing laws. 

Background checks for private party sales sounds good, but then you would need a registration to keep track of the guns.  And that don't fly with many states.

It would have to go through an FFL or local LE.  Another option is to have individual call it in somehow for a background check and make them liable if they don't do the check or ignore a rejection.

Interesting how that senator who got shot at the softball practice never introduced any infringements to the 2a.  Nor did anyone else at the practice due to the shooting.

Neither did the senator who was a high school student at the time of the Columbine shooting.

The diff, DNC vs. GOP.

Simply because that senator has a brain and Gifford only half.....

I would say more like a party who undo's infringing laws. 

Background checks for private party sales sounds good, but then you would need a registration to keep track of the guns.  And that don't fly with many states.

they added universal background checks in oregon stating there were 10-20 thousand private sales a month.  Several years later there are perhaps 300-400 a month actually checked..  Also extremely low denial rates with pretty much no arrests.   Lots of non-compliance and it turns out only the really stupid criminals go to a FFL to complete their background checks. 

At the same time they made the Curios and Relics 03 FFL illegal.  Since I guess of all those crimes with WWI bolt action guns. 

And then if you look at the actual records in the FBI NICS background check database these are the total listed records in Oregon by category.:
Felony: 2
Under Indictment: 0
Fugitive from Justice: 0
Unlawful user/addicted to a controlled substance 0
Illegal Alien  0
Dishonorable discharge 0
Renounced US citizenship 0
Restraining order for domestic Violence 0
Convicted of Domestic abuse 2

So despite making a law that all all private transfers are illegal without a background check, it turns out very few are bothering.  And then, the background check database has a total of 4 felonies and Domestic violence convictions to check 

On top of that, many of the counties that still respect the constitution said that they will not convict anyone if they dont do a private sale background check

another interesting fact.  Wyoming only lists 7 (seven) mental health records in the background check database.  Wyoming either has the most mentally stable people on the planet or the state is not actually reporting the records. 
Even more interesting??  Wyoming has the least "mass shootings" in all of the US every year.  They dont even bother reporting mental health disqualifiers and they have the least crazy people shooting up malls.  I wonder why that is?

See why a universal background checks are quite dumb without a reasonably functioning background check database?

The NCIS doesnt get reported to by many states, even hawaii. IIRC the entire state of Alamaba has only 44 felons.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I think the majority favor the idea of a background check but polls never go into the details that make or break a good and just background check system.

https://www.wrdw.com/content/news/Dems-to-push-gun-control-on-anniversary-of-Giffords-shooting-503989451.html

Giffords, who co-founded a gun safety group with her husband, Mark Kelly, said in a statement Friday she was thrilled that her former House colleagues were responding to a gun-violence epidemic that killed nearly 40,000 people in 2017.

The bill expanding background checks "marks a critical first step toward strengthening America's gun laws and making our country a safer place to live, work, study, worship and play," Giffords said. "I stand ready to do everything in my power to get this legislation across the finish line."

Gabby gives a hint. Any questions?

Her bill would not have prevented her from getting shot...

Her bill would not have prevented her from getting shot...

Nor any other victim of a "mass public shooting" in the 21st century. Like Giffords's attacker, they almost all passed background checks to lawfully acquire the firearm(s). The few that didn't pass background checks were the ones who stole the guns they used. Not one single one of the murderers acquired their guns via a "gun show loophole" private sale that would supposedly have been prevented by "universal background checks" ("the first step").

Nor any other victim of a "mass public shooting" in the 21st century. Like Giffords's attacker, they almost all passed background checks to lawfully acquire the firearm(s). The few that didn't pass background checks were the ones who stole the guns they used. Not one single one of the murderers acquired their guns via a "gun show loophole" private sale that would supposedly have been prevented by "universal background checks" ("the first step").

100% correct.  She is using emotion and her situation to get a bill passed.  Hope the senate rejects it. 

Nor any other victim of a "mass public shooting" in the 21st century. Like Giffords's attacker, they almost all passed background checks to lawfully acquire the firearm(s). The few that didn't pass background checks were the ones who stole the guns they used. Not one single one of the murderers acquired their guns via a "gun show loophole" private sale that would supposedly have been prevented by "universal background checks" ("the first step").

I wouldn't say it wouldn't have prevented any of them. Some of them may have been prevented, specifically instances where there were a lot of red flags ahead of time. However there were absolutely a large number where there were no significant warning signs and advanced background checks would not have prevented.

I wouldn't say it wouldn't have prevented any of them.

Then you'd be wrong.

Some of them may have been prevented, specifically instances where there were a lot of red flags ahead of time.

They all passed background checks. So, you're wrong again.

However there were absolutely a large number where there were no significant warning signs and advanced background checks would not have prevented.

What's an "advanced background check"? There is no such thing as part of the bill for "universal background checks"... all it does is make private sales illegal. And of course, as stated above, people who steal guns or otherwise obtain them illegally don't submit to any background check, "advanced" or otherwise, and never will.

In states that do not require a permit to buy or registration, how would they know if A sold a gun to B in a private sale.  Another stupid law.

I wouldn't say it wouldn't have prevented any of them. Some of them may have been prevented, specifically instances where there were a lot of red flags ahead of time. However there were absolutely a large number where there were no significant warning signs and advanced background checks would not have prevented.

Red flags were all over Nick Cruz, but nothing was done.  So the million dollar question is how do you prevent something without violating rights (due process)?  Although some states have already violated them due to red flag laws (WA & FL).

Vegas was unforeseeable, well the CIA knew...

Pulse Night Club, FBI knew...

The list goes on how our LE who work very hard, but can let us down due to being human.  Mainly their failures are known, but not their successes.

In states that do not require a permit to buy or registration, how would they know if A sold a gun to B in a private sale.  Another stupid law.

The people behind proposing these laws (not the rank and file stupid Demanding Moms, etc.) already know that "universal background checks" cannot "work" without a gun registry... even the DOJ published a study saying so. Thus they will pass the "universal background checks" and none of the stats re crime will change and they will say that is because the law cannot be effectively enforced without a registry, therefore we need gun registration. Of course that doesn't change anything either, as criminals are not known for following new laws when they didn't follow any of the old laws. I'd argue it's not a "stupid law" so much as it is a tactic in the arsenal of the civilian disarmament fascists in their incremental approach to achieving their ultimate goal... and they know the law (and all subsequent laws short of confiscation) will be "ineffective". That's what they want and how the whole "program" is designed. Makes one wonder what they have in mind that would be too difficult to carry out if civilians are armed.