Background Checks

[billc]

Any time someone has to stop and reload, it gives people who might otherwise get shot, a chance to get clear.

Let me fix this for you...

Anytime a victim has to stop and reload, it gives the criminal and his partners a chance to injure or kill the victim and other victims who may be at the scene...

 

[Jimfaul]

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.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

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.

 

[MJS]

The primary problem is that some officials have already stated that for a "universal," background check to work, they would need a registry of firearms that they could follow them for the purposes of the checks. Also, these checks would mean if you wanted to give your son your weapon, pass it down to him, you would have to take it to a registered firearms dealer to have the background check done...at the cost of several hundred dollars. Also, for the purposes of determining if that weapon was a legally owned weapon, you would have to present proof of ownership, which in some cases would be impossible because some weapons were bought years ago and reciepts probably weren't kept. You could no longer loan people a weapon without first getting a background check, for example, your sister is afraid her ex-boyfriend is stalking her...she would have to have a background check before you could loan her any of your weapons. Those are some of the immediate concerns about "universal," background checks. Too many times these "common sense," measures are merely means to limit gun access by making it more complicated and more expensive to get weapons. For example, Tom Dart, Cook County Sherrif, wants to charge 300 dollars to do background checks in the city of Chicago...if you have limited means, that is a lot of money.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/18/Universal-Background-Checks-Equal-Universal-Gun-Control



http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/universal_background_checks_the_liberal_holy_grail.html

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.

 

[MJS]

Great point, MJS. What is a "background check?" Within the government, there exists a wide range of actions defined as background checks. Some are simply running someone's name and vitals, maybe not even fingerprints (more on them momentarily) against the various databases to see if there are any hits. Others add in-depth interviews, verification of multiple page personal history statements by actually going out and confirming the info, interviews with current and past neighbors and coworkers, and even polygraphs. Let's be real: I doubt anything proposed will include any actual investigation or interviews except at the dealer. There's simply not enough investigative infrastructure to do a true background investigation on every registered gun sale (private sales are even more of a problem; can you prevent me from selling my gun to someone on my own? How?). So... it'll be database checking.

How good is database checking? Only as good as the data you put in. I always get a laugh out of the TV detectives who always get fingerprint hits. Guess what? If you haven't been fingerprinted before, you're not in a database. Even if you have -- you may not be. Lots of applicant and/or elimination fingerprints are simply compared against the records, not added to the files. (There are privacy concerns here...) Even if they are added, those files are sometimes restricted for access because there's a good argument that simply applying for something shouldn't make you subject to criminal investigation hits. Police databases of criminal activity only include those crooks we've caught... If you weren't caught, or the data wasn't reported (often currently the case with mental health information), we can check the database all day long. We won't find you.

So, let's go totally 1984/Big Brother on this. Let's fingerprint everyone at about age 5 or 6, and then every year thereafter. All medical history gets logged and reported to a centralized database. Great. We're still only gonna know about what's reported. The database is only as good as what goes in... and, for some reason, people don't always seek help with mental health issues, especially. Maybe we should take things a step further, and mandate annual mental health exams for everyone, with a secondary exam to purchase a gun? And put RFID chips in all guns manufactured that are checked every time you go near toll booths, police stations, maybe even every red light on the road? Those tags are then compared with the registered owner's RFID (might as well give 'em one if they pass that psych eval...) as an authorized gun possessor and they'd better be in reasonable proximity, or the gun control cops come knocking to see why... Kinda scary where this starts to lead, huh?

And it still will miss illegal guns (I can make a very effective zip gun for less than 10 bucks... and I'm nothin' special as a gunsmith.) and "under the table" transfers. It'll miss older guns.

I don't have a problem with cleaning up the current sieve-like structure of the database checks by establishing clear reporting and entry requirements and holding people accountable for making the entries, and making it clear who gets access. I don't have a problem, provided we provide a reasonable structure to do it, with requiring a background check like that at gun shows and similar large scale set ups where there would otherwise be lots of "private" transfers. But I want to be reasonable about it, too. It's already kind of scary what I can officially find out through various police intelligence/information sharing programs. Or through public records sources...

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.

 

[MJS]

Keep in mind...background checks only work on law abiding citizens. Criminals won't use them so they won't have a problem with getting around them. The only people who will be affected by background checks will be people who haven't comitted a crime. Sandy Hook, he murdered his mother to circumvent the background check. The movie theater, he didn't have a criminal record...until he walked in with his legally purchased guns and started killing people. Columbine...not old enough to own the guns, stole them. Background checks won't stop crime, they won't stop mass shootings. The are either feel good measures, or are back door means to make legally getting firearms more difficult for law abiding citizens.

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.

 

[MJS]

well, here's an honest question: Given that it is illegal for certain people to be in possession of a firearm, such as convicted felons and whatnot, what steps are reasonable to ensure those people don't get access?

Is it reasonable to just expect those people to not attempt to acquire firearms? Is it reasonable to expect them to abide by that restriction on their status? It's often said, the criminals don't follow the law. So why would anyone expect them to simply not attempt to get a firearm? I don't see that as reasonable, I don't believe that convicted felons, as a whole, will simply never try to get a gun.

Or is there a responsibility for someone who is selling or passing on ownership of a firearm to take reasonable steps to make sure they are not selling or passing on possession or ownership of a firearm to someone with a restricted status? If this is a reasonable expectation, then how do we accomplish it? Removing the loopholes in background checks seems to me to be a step in that direction, especially with the strawman purchases where people intend to re-sell to others. If strawman purchasers can be held accountable, it gives law enforcement another tool to keep guns away from those who shouldn't have them, and makes it more difficult for strawman purchasers to get those weapons in the first place.

So what steps are reasonable to ensure that people with restricted status do not acquire firearms? And I realize that no method will be perfect, but I'm willing to see reasonable steps implemented. The fact that no method will be perfect is not an excuse to do nothing.

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.

 

[MJS]

I completely agree that our system for background checks needs a change. But the changes needed are not what they are proposing.

1. Background checks should not cost the citizen half the cost of the gun. In Texas the check is practically free. And takes less than an hour.

2. We should NOT impose extra restrictions that do nothing to stop crime. As Bill pointed out, it does nothing to deter crime of any type.

3. What SHOULD be done is an effort to keep better records of a citizen's criminal history. Any violent crime are needed in a database for these checks. It's already there, and should pop up within minutes of running someone's name and social. So why should a background check take more than a few minutes? It is stupid, and there is no excuse.

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.

The problem is that it seems less about background checks, which are already run on weapon purchases, and more about registry. But how does a registry stop any crime? If someone is going to do a mass shooting, why does it matter if the guns are registered. These people aren't going to care.
What stops theft of a gun or several guns and them being used in crime? And don't say gun safes. It is very simple to steal the safe and break the lock. Given a short period of time you can break just about any safe. And I know that personally I don't have, and refuse to accept need of a safe costing several thousand dollars.

The point is that there is nothing proposed that stops or helps the problems they are claiming it addresses. So we, as law abiding freedom loving American gun owners, oppose it on these grounds. But then we are portrayed as crazy. We are accused of being uncaring or unsympathetic to the suffering of the families of the victims in these horrible acts. When the truth is, it sickens me to see these things happen. And it angers me that instead of actually talking about things that might help, our government is using it to push an agenda that solves no problems for reasons I don't even want to think of. I hope that these people are honestly just dumb enough to believe their own propaganda, it's better than contemplating what other motives could drive them.

So yes, I do think things could be done. Yes I think that they should be done. But no, this is not one of them. And thanks to the propaganda, most people are in such fear and misled so much that they have only made things worse.

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.

 

[MJS]

As far as restrictions on ownership, or loaning guns to law abiding family etc. to protect them when it is needed is causing more harm than good. Anyone selling a gun illegally will find a loophole to exploit. And unless we put GPS trackers in all guns, which I would be completely against, it doesn't stop much and will mostly hinder law abiding citizens. Not to mention cost us all a lot more money. But perhaps that is the goal? Make it cost more and fewer people can own weapons. And those who do pay large sums of money for every aspect of a right, that is quickly becoming a privelage given to a few. The few that can pay.

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.

 

[Drasken]

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.

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.

 

[Drasken]

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.

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.

 

[MJS]

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.

 

[billc]

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.

 

[jks9199]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

 

[Tgace]

Having to pay anything to exercise a Constitutional Right should be a non-starter....

 

[Tgace]

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...nt-of-risk-in-a-society?p=1569189#post1569189

 

[jks9199]

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...nt-of-risk-in-a-society?p=1569189#post1569189

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.

 

[billc]

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.

 

[MJS]

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.

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.