Background Checks
- Thread starter MJS
- Start date
I own firearms and personally don't see the issue with expanded background checks and smaller magazine sizes. The intent of constitutional right to bear arms was to give the citizens the ability to overthrow the government if it trampled on are rights. The forefathers could not have predicted the military technology we have today. The only way the citizens would stand a chance if we had access to grenades, mines, tanks, planes and so on. Since that is never going to happen. I think we need to seriously think about doing something to restrict the use of firearms in this country. People don't want to give up their AR15s because they are fun to shoot. I own one, and really I have no reason to own it other than the fun factor. Personally I don't think that is a good enough reason to own a firearm. When I go hunting I only need one bullet. A bolt action is fine. If giving up my AR15 saves a few lifes then I am okay with that.
I've had a background check for every firearm I have ever purchased. It was not onerous or expensive but simply a small part of the process. I see no reason why we cannot do background checks and close all the loopholes.
Yes, after reading the links, I can see how this would make for more work. On one hand, it would seem like this is something that should've been done all along. I mean, when people sell a car, either privately or thru a dealer, it involves lots of paperwork, and things have to got thru DMV. There're steps you have to take when you sell property. On the other hand, if people are concerned that the UBC isn't workable, an alternative solution should be found. What that solution is...don't know.
Agreed! And you're spot on with what you said regarding the current system and it being only as good as what's put into it. I recall reading an article about the Boston bombers, and the numerous computer watch list systems that various agencies have access to. I believe it was Tamerlan who was in one of the systems, but his name was put into the system with a different spelling, thus no red flag was raised when it was initially researched with the correct spelling.
Unfortunately, as I said before, this is probably something that should've been in place years ago. When it takes a tragedy to send the wake up call that the system failed, of course everyone goes into panic mode, trying to fix the impossible.
That is true. Perhaps the penalty for crimes with guns should be stiffer than they currently are. As for the movie theater and SH shooters...IIRC, their mental health and/or comments that they've made prior to the shootings, were known by others, who unfortunately, didn't act in time.
For starters, I'd say make tougher penalties for people who commit crimes with guns. You're a dirt bag who sells a gun to another dirt bag...lock their *** up for a 10yr min. sentence. And yes I know the more bags of trash you lock up, the more prisons that'll need to be built, etc, etc, then you have those that are NIMBY..not in my backyard. They cry for tougher penalties but don't want the prison anywhere nearby. It seems like its a lose-lose situation. I'm simply saying that when I pick up someones criminal history and see 30+ arrests...well, it begs the question of why the hell this guy is walking around.
I'd also say to be less restrictive with medical issues. Sorry, but when it comes to the well being of people, I'd be willing to sacrifice the privacy BS. You got some MH issues...then dammit let them be known. And shame on the doctors that learn about potential threats/comments that're made, and they do nothing.
1) True, the checks shouldn't require hours.
2) Agreed, thus the reason why I suggested making gun crimes carry tough penalties.
3) See #1.
Sadly, the good guys always seem to take a harder hit that the dirt bags. If someone is determined to beat the system, its very possible they'll do it. But IMO, there has to be something that can make that road as difficult as possible.
Question for you, and I ask this seriously because I don't know the answer myself. If you loan a gun to someone for the purpose of protection, and that person uses that gun to protect themselves, are we also under the assumption that the person who had the gun loaned to them, has all of the proper paperwork to carry/have the gun in their possession? And if they had all the proper paperwork, one would assume that they'd own their own gun, no? I mean, that'd be like going thru the process of getting a drivers license but not owning a car. Sure, I suppose that's possible, but it seems odd.
Not that I support armed response to our government as it certainly has not come to be necissary, but if it does I must once again disagree that we are unable to do anything.
As I have stated before in other threads, we have been fighting small groups of fighters in the middle east for years. If it was so easy to put them down, we would have been done over there in weeks, not years. Also, why are you so sure we have no access to explosives such as grenades if they ever became needed? Kids assaulting Columbine used pipe bombs. A terrorist blew up buildings with common items in a cargo truck. And recently Boston was brought to its knees by 2 young men with improvised explosives and a few guns.
So while these people were crazy and I in NO way condone their actions, and also in NO way imply any need for armed action against our government, I also fully deny the notion that we are helpless. Only a fool would believe such a claim.
It depends. For example if I loan my gun to my mother in law, who could legally buy her own, in my state she could carry it in her car with no permit. It must remain concealed, cannot be taken out of her car unless on her property without a concealed carry permit and also must lock the car while not in it if the gun remains in the vehicle.
That being said, if I loan the gun to a friend who feels threatened and that friend is a felon I can now be charged for providing a weapon to a felon. The laws are pretty clear cut, but complex enough to try and plug as many loopholes as possible. And that varies from state to state.
In the example you list though, the gun, is pretty useless to her, in that situation, if she's outside of her home. If that's the case, then I'd imagine she or someone else in that situation, would be best to just get their own weapon.
To be honest, I'm not even sure what the laws are here in Ct, regarding letting someone borrow a weapon.
The background check system in Illinois is simply submitting to a State Police background check and then you receive a Firearm Owners I.D. card. You show this whenever you buy guns or ammo, at gun stores or at gun shows with actual dealers. When I purchased my first weapon, from a police officer friend, he photo copied my FOID card and the make and model of the gun for our own records. I still have it.
A back ground check should simply be something you put into the data base and it comes back yes or no due to a felony or whatever other criteria each state votes on. That's it. In that way the gun dealer or store isn't selling guns to criminals. No permanent record, no gun registry. If someone with a felony buys a gun, from a private individual and is caught with that gun, they should go to jail. That pretty much deals with the problem of criminals with guns...no background check necessary.
A back ground check should simply be something you put into the data base and it comes back yes or no due to a felony or whatever other criteria each state votes on. That's it. In that way the gun dealer or store isn't selling guns to criminals. No permanent record, no gun registry. If someone with a felony buys a gun, from a private individual and is caught with that gun, they should go to jail. That pretty much deals with the problem of criminals with guns...no background check necessary.
Background checks should, generally be instant returns. There should be two or possibly three responses: Eligible, Ineligible, and possibly Ineligible/notify police. That last one is the maybe because I don't want business owners in a bad situation, but it allows a flag for missing/suicidal, or classes of wanted persons to be there and have the police notified that they attempted to purchase a gun at that location.
oftheherd1
Senior Master
There have been some comments with merit so far, but imho this is the first good suggestion I have seen in this thread that might deter criminals desire to use weapons, or their ability to use weapons. It is expanded on in the next quote. Just as importantly, the issue of those whose mental capacity or lack thereof, makes their freedom to roam freely, a serious problem. And one that must be addressed.
Why keep picking on guns or law abiding citizens and not restrain criminals and those with mental problems that make them dangerous to the rest of society? That simply cannot be justified.
Good points. Especially as pertains to the dangerously mental ill. Society has a right to protect itself from those who wish it harm. Law abiding citizens are no threat. Guns are not sentient.
Bold/underlined: Sorry, but when you commit a felonious act, you lose certain privileges. That is law in most states. The lesson; don't commit felonious acts.
I don't oppose background checks that are not in my opinion beyond reason. In the current debates, I haven't heard of any that pass my muster. Most seem aimed against law abiding citizens, no matter they say they are aimed at criminals. I also don't like the idea that I would have to pay for a background check. Congress is famous, or should I say notorious, for unfunded mandates. I pay taxes. Take the cost out of that. After all, what is new? The databases already exist. The electronic means to access them already exist. The means to populate them needs to be overhauled, but that is true whether or not they are used for gun-buying background checks. Let the government shoulder the costs.
Change the requirement to protect the identity of those whose mental condition make them a likely threat to the rest of society. While I understand the necessity of open and free communication between a doctor and patient, most states already mandate disclosure of sexually transmitted disease. Why not dangerous mental condition?
Summary for those who don't follow the link: Background check blocked sale because of similarities in vitals between a guy & someone prohibited. End result is a note in the file, so he's still getting a hit, but has a chance to sort it out with a phone call. Probably every sale...
With AFIS tech today, it's not unfeasible to have a fingerprint scanner that checks at least one finger, if not all of them, at the counter on potential hits.
But it's really not that different from a wanted hit in the street. I stopped a guy one night, and actually ended up calling the agency rather than hooking him. Name, DOB, all that was close, and someone had also added the guy I had's SSN to the wanted person file for some reason. I had enough indicators in the street to make me question the hit, and dig. Like I said -- I called the issuing agency, and they did two things: sent me a picture and pulled detailed info about the wanted guy's tattoos. I didn't take the guy I had in. But it was real close, and I worked things rather carefully to minimize the alarm to his wife & kids.
So... what's the solution? Make sure that the right info is in the system. Give the person at the point-of-sale enough information to confirm the identity, not require a phone call that hopes someone on the other end knows what's up.
Okay, so now we know that conservatives, pro-life groups, and Jewish groups were being targeted by obama supporters in the I.R.S. (please, don't try to tell me they aren't supporters of obama and the democrats). This if nothing else, is a huge reason to doubt the fairness of any universal background check plan. It isn't a stretch to think that someones political affiliations might not end up either delaying their ability to get a background check done, or to be denied all together for permit to own or carry a weapon. We have seen it here with the I.R.S. and if they can do it, the E.P.A. has been doing it, so any sort of background check plan is now vulnerable to this political activism against certain political parties and philosophies.
IMHO, I'd say the main issues that die hard gun owners and the NRA have, is the fact that all of these new rules, all of these restrictions, bans, etc, that are in place, and were put in place on a knee jerk reaction, do not address gun crimes, and the folks who shouldn't have guns, yet still get them. Is it possible for a legit gun owner to snap? Sure, anything is possible. But when we pick up the paper or watch the news and hear about mass shootings or shootings in big cities, the one on Mothers Day..no, I'm sorry, but those are the people who are the root cause of the problem.
Now, perhaps some ideas have been tossed out, but have been overlooked, or deemed not acceptable, in regards to how to deal with the bad guys, but I don't know....it just seems to me, that the plans that're currently in place, and I can only speak for what I see in my state, that they're not addressing the main issues.
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
-
éåæ ZhĆ²ngxÄ«n center of gravity
- Latest: Wing Woo Gar
-
-
