Background checks - controversy

Is that why in cases where the Federal Government is the respondent, it's usually the Attorney General or other Cabinet Officer, rather than the United States, but when the Federal Government is the appellant the case is usually the United States v ______?
Click to expand...
The short answer is yes, though sovereign immunity of the federal government is not based on the 11th Amendment.
 
Yeah, it's inevitable.

Eventually the LEO's will get bad information.

Eventually someone will transpose two digits on a search warrant, mix up
street, avenue, boulevard, etc.

Eventually while apprehending one criminal that's a danger for society, bystanders wlll be shot, by one side or the other.

Eventually, the deaf man walking down the street will be tackled, assaulted, and detained when he doesn't respond in any way to the challenge of the law enforcement officer- because he was literally deaf to those orders.

We can argue theory all day long. Eventually theory has to be applied to reality. People make mistakes. It's in the nature of people. Being forcibly detained because you couldn't hear the LEO over the music in your earbuds doesn't rise to anywhere NEAR the same level of "mens rea" as using a phone book in an interrogation room to beat a confession out of someone.
Click to expand...

I agree that mistakes are bound to happen. But if laws were more clearly made, lines more clearly drawn, and punishment more swift and sure, both for those who break laws, and for the occasional "mistake", I think we would see a lot fewer laws broken on purpose, and a lot fewer laws broken by "mistake" or other such grievances laid to the shoulders of honest men without reason.

The problem is, criminals do not fear being criminals, and "honest" men who would make "mistakes" against honest men all too often do not fear repercussion either. Else why would we have supposed representatives and others in government who do not lend ear to the people, or fear what will happen if they don't?

You can claim you are acting in my best interest all you want, or that it's for the children, or my own good, but it's hard to believe you when you are taking things that belong to me, and trampling my rights. I can never see such actions as being for my own good. God created me, and gave me my own rights, and my own ability to decide what is good for me. It just so happens that a great deal of those rights were recognized by our brilliant founders, and enshrined in our foundational documents. I will not see them stripped from hand, or give them up willingly for false promises of compromise that is never, ever compromise, only control, and a tighter leash.
 
Who exactly did you fight that was threatening the BoR in the USA?
Or, do you mean, you served in the military, in combat, for some President's most likely ill-advised and even questionably ethical war(s) like I did?
Click to expand...

When I took an oath, I swore that I would protect and defend the Constitution first and foremost, before any man or entity that would seek to trample it, whether they be foreign or American. I see people all around me, especially in our government, that enjoy the rights and privileges of being named American, yet seek boldly to deny others of those same basic rights. To me that makes them American's in name only, and I really have no use for anyone who plays games with my freedom, or the rights and freedoms of others that myself, and many others fought for. Do you remember your oath? Mine went something like this:

I, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Pay particular attention to the bolded section, and notice it comes first, and therefor takes precedence over the rest, if the rest threaten the first. Do ponder that won't you?
 
I agree that infractions of civil liberties are inevitable. The question of how to handle them legally remains. One answer is to legally sanction those violations, building exceptions into the law. ... Another answer is to be aware that states will infringe civil liberties, but not provide the cover of law for those infringements.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
I'm a bit late on this, I've been gone for a while, just found my way back. But in response tothe OP

I'm going to pre-empt this with some caveats.
1) I've been around firearms all my life
2) I was military, now work for LE
3) I own and will always
4) I am not a democrat, or progressive, I'm an unaffiliated independent who thinks both parties are FUBAR

However, I've been a little disturbed by some people refusing any way shape or form of background checks. Personally, I like selling to someone I KNOW has been at least minimally vetted. The system is far from perfect, granted, but it is a much better system than saying something like you can sniff out a bad guy during your 5 minute meeting with cash in hand and deny the sale based on your gut.

I personally believe that, without any associated government record keeping, continued use of 4473 (and prosecution of liars on the form) is a good thing. It is responsible gun ownership... how I was raised.

To sell to someone without this, in my opinion, is a behavior that should be checked. You simply cannot know if the person is a sociopath.

Force them to go to the black market, which they will always be able too... but when they do, and they go kill people, and it comes back that the gun wasn't legally purchased, it helps our cause... because the media can't say, "look how easy it is to buy guns!".

Lanza actually WAS stopped by gun control. He tried to buy in CT two days before the massacre, and was turned down.
The problem? His mother was an irresponsible creature who left guns within easy reach of an autistic kid (basically Asperger's, which is a form of Autism) with other serious problems who was obsessed with guns, violent games, and his being turned down for military service. Not good.

In 2002-2003, over 120k form 4473s led to rejection. This is a good thing. The DoJ only prosecuted less than 1% of them, however, which is a bad thing. At a minimum, we know some of those people went on to get guns, though they shouldn't have them... but, wasn't it good that all of them didn't get them? Can we work on the system and make it good, so less killings are likely, which will create better statistics to boost our argument for future occurences?

I think the knee-jerk "no compromise" position is a classic case of cutting off one's nose despite one's face.

Discuss...
Can 4473, expanded to all transfers between strangers, be ok under the right conditions?
Click to expand...

I've started a grass roots idea that so far goes something like this
The biggest hurdle to passing new background checks for gun owners, is the risk of that data being used to compile a list of all gun owners. Which brings the inevitable attempt somewhere down the line of forced confiscation, given that the gun grabbing party will have a list of targets to go after. As I see it there is only one way to avoid this - remove the connection of background check from the action of gun purchasing. This means doing a background check on EVERYONE - once.

This can be accomplished by doing an NICS background check on each and every person and providing proof of pass/fail status. I would propose that this be done at the next renewal date for the person operators license or photo ID. The status of the NICS check would be posted on the photo ID - that status will not change unless there is legal action toward that person - in the case of that legal action, the photo ID would be updated IMMEDIATELY, so it would remain up to date and current. At that point ALL firearm sales would have the requirement that the seller check the photo ID of the buyer, not just for verification that the buyer resides in the same state (because interstate sales will still require the use of an FFL, due to the interstate commerce clause), but also to verify that the CURRENT status of the last NICS check is a a Pass and the buyer is a lawful person to sell to.

Problem solved - no potentially abusable database created.

The only people that could possibly have a problem with this would be criminals who do not wish to be found, and those whose real purpose was the database they wished to abuse in the first place.
Click to expand...

Rip away legal eagles.
 
Welcome back, and doesn't Twitter do the strangest things?

The biggest hurdle to passing new background checks for gun owners, is the risk of that data being used to compile a list of all gun owners. Which brings the inevitable attempt somewhere down the line of forced confiscation, given that the gun grabbing party will have a list of targets to go after. As I see it there is only one way to avoid this - remove the connection of background check from the action of gun purchasing. This means doing a background check on EVERYONE - once.
Click to expand...

Many mental diseases and defects show up later in life. College ages and beyond. A BG check at 16 or 18 would be less likely to catch those, as Adjudication requires them to show up, and dramatically so, first. These would also have to be updated with your criminal activity provision below

This can be accomplished by doing an NICS background check on each and every person and providing proof of pass/fail status. I would propose that this be done at the next renewal date for the person operators license or photo ID. The status of the NICS check would be posted on the photo ID - that status will not change unless there is legal action toward that person - in the case of that legal action, the photo ID would be updated IMMEDIATELY, so it would remain up to date and current.
Click to expand...
The problem with this, is that the states have a hard enough time keeping up with removing actual firearms from those who end up with a firearms disability, let alone the ones who would need an updated license and don't have any interest in firearms.

You're also opening up HIPPA concerns for the general public, if someone is in treatment for a mental issue that provides a firearms disability, but not confinement for treatment... the government needs to know it, not the server bringing you a beer.


At that point ALL firearm sales would have the requirement that the seller check the photo ID of the buyer, not just for verification that the buyer resides in the same state (because interstate sales will still require the use of an FFL, due to the interstate commerce clause), but also to verify that the CURRENT status of the last NICS check is a a Pass and the buyer is a lawful person to sell to.
Click to expand...

Without an active participation element, a forged document is all that is necessary. The best pre-screened suggestion I've seen was to print out a certificate with an authorization number, and the seller dials a NICS type number, reads off the Authorization number, verifies things like name, address, height, weight, and so on, but not financially sensitive info like SSN.
 
This can be accomplished by doing an NICS background check on each and every person and providing proof of pass/fail status. I would propose that this be done at the next renewal date for the person operators license or photo ID.
Click to expand...
Privacy advocates would take issue with this. So would I. It's needlessly intrusive from the standpoint of those who have no interest in firearms ownership. Even if it didn't run afoul of the law, it would be wildly unpopular.

And yet again, why bother? We went for over two centuries without background checks. The NICS system hasn't been proven to reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals, nor has it been shown to have any impact on crimes committed with guns.
 
LOL.
That's one of the reasons for putting it out this way. It's a "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" type of argument. If it is so "unintrusive" to make prospective gun owners go through it, then the rest of the "potential" Militia (All persons of able body capable of bearing arms in case of emergency) shouldn't have reason to object to it. That particularly applies to those who push so hard for it.

For most of those 2 previous centuries, people lived in close enough knit communities, that everyone pretty much knew everyone else within their sphere of exposure. So anyone who was selling a gun would have known that billy bob was just a bit "not right" and would have first contacted the head of that family to find out why he needed one.
 
Vibe said:
The only people that could possibly have a problem with this would be criminals who do not wish to be found, and those whose real purpose was the database they wished to abuse in the first place.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, . . . untrue. I've had my background checked for various reasons at least 5 times in the past 10 years. I'm neither a "criminal who do[es] not wish to be found," nor one who wishes to abuse such a database. Nonetheless, I object. This proposeal is one short step to being asked for "papers" on the street.
 
It's immensely intrusive. Moreover, the NICS system isn't adequately funded, or enforced, as it stands; requiring the entire population to be checked by the system, and their records to be kept up to date, would be very expensive indeed.
The only people that could possibly have a problem with this would be criminals who do not wish to be found, and those whose real purpose was the database they wished to abuse in the first place.
Click to expand...
"The innocent have nothing to fear" is a line that's been used by governments for a very long time in order to justify restriction of rights, invasion of privacy, and denial of due process. Typically, the innocent find out that they did have something to fear, but by then the damage is done. For example, consider the U.S. government's 'no-fly' list for air travel: it's easy for a completely innocent person to be listed, and just about impossible to get off it.
 
While I agree with you Spats, why must we have to go thought it each and every time, for each and every transaction (if certain parties have their way). Each time an NICS check is run, that's one more opportunity for some minimum wage part timer answering the phone to transpose a letter or number and hit you or I with a Deny response. Eventually it will happen.
As for the overwhelming load - I'm not sure I'm buying that excuse either. The difference between running NICS checks on 1/5 of the population 3 to 20 times each in the course of a few years is actually more than running the entire population over a 5 year period. After all, if we are to go by what the Founding Fathers discussed in the Federalist Papers, and enumerated in the 2nd Amendment - the intent was for every man to be armed and ready to come tothe call of his country. If there are some who, for one reason or another should not be burdened with that - for whatever reason (and I am not proposing that that reason be displayed on the photo ID) I think the average person should be able to be responsibly informed. But I also happen to think that if you can't be trusted with a gun, than you shouldn't be trusted to hold public office either....But that's just me.
I'm just looking for one line
"NICS = Pass" or "NICS = Deny" & there would be no "delay" nor obligation to explain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top