Background checks - controversy
- Thread starter Kochman
- Start date
He's made a decent case for the flip side of erring on the side of caution as well.
The woman being stalked by her abusive ex husband might not be able to wait for a 7 day period.
Plan it out a little better? Should she apply the restraining order to her face so when he ignores it and beats her, it'll soften the blow? We love the rhetoric sound bite- when seconds count the police are minutes away.
I believe it wouldn't be an overall bad thing for every transfer of title to go through a background check. I also believe there will be instances where it would be bad. This is not a perfect world, and us folks running around in it aren't perfect either.
Finally, and remember you and I agree quite a bit here Kochman, your posts are striking me as a bit... heated. Passionate discussion is great, but we have to keep it constructive. Suggesting someone leads a very upset life is not constructive.
Kochman said:
Let's not make this personal.
If justice delayed is justice denied, then an undue delay in clearing a 4473 is a genuine injustice.
Kochman said:
That is not a correct test for the protection of a civil right. The protection of civil rights will sometimes have unfortunate consequences. To err on the side of safety will necessarily obliterate any civil right.
Kochman said:
The issue presented here is not ownership, but the transfer process. Does invoking criminal liability for the failure to complete a 4473 check "ensure that you aren't selling to a violent sociopath with a record"? I doubt you believe that it does.
Kochman said:
If the record check prevents me from illegally obtaining the device I need in order to exercise a civil right, then that record check is the mechanism by which I am prevented from exercising the right.
Kochman said:
Yet, where the exercise of a right is made gratuitously difficult or expensive, it is fair to ask whether the difficulty and expense is required for the purpose of showing the exercise of the right itself.
Beating and leaving of a spouse isn't generally an overnight development...
Any stranger to stranger sale should be vetted. That's my opinion.
I really get tired of people thinking they are losing their rights because they have to fill out a form which simply reports if they've already lost their rights. It simply isn't accurate, and when you point that out to them and they continue to argue the same point, they create confusion and fear amongst people, and that's not a good thing, as it leads to knee-jerk reactions...
I was raised to be a responsible gun owner. I kind of expect gun owners to be responsible and thoughtful.
@Z
Any such unjustified loss is temporary. That's the key word.
And the 4473 is hardly "undue hardship".
Any stranger to stranger sale should be vetted. That's my opinion.
I really get tired of people thinking they are losing their rights because they have to fill out a form which simply reports if they've already lost their rights. It simply isn't accurate, and when you point that out to them and they continue to argue the same point, they create confusion and fear amongst people, and that's not a good thing, as it leads to knee-jerk reactions...
I was raised to be a responsible gun owner. I kind of expect gun owners to be responsible and thoughtful.
@Z
Any such unjustified loss is temporary. That's the key word.
And the 4473 is hardly "undue hardship".
Kochman, could we step back for a bit of perspective?
You have suggested something like a 4473 check for intra-state transfers amongst unlicensed individuals. This is a misapplication of the federal system.
The 4473 check system exists for the purpose of regulating federal licensees. It exists so that federal licensees do not transfer arms to legally prohibited individuals.
That system is not designed to prohibit all arms transfers to prohibited individuals. Indeed, firearms are a common item. The central problem with your proposal is that it cannot work for the end to which you put it; no law will prevent a determined criminal from obtaining a common item.
Expanding the 4473 check to unlicensed individuals burdens and an importent civil right toward no good end.
You have suggested something like a 4473 check for intra-state transfers amongst unlicensed individuals. This is a misapplication of the federal system.
The 4473 check system exists for the purpose of regulating federal licensees. It exists so that federal licensees do not transfer arms to legally prohibited individuals.
That system is not designed to prohibit all arms transfers to prohibited individuals. Indeed, firearms are a common item. The central problem with your proposal is that it cannot work for the end to which you put it; no law will prevent a determined criminal from obtaining a common item.
Expanding the 4473 check to unlicensed individuals burdens and an importent civil right toward no good end.
Spats McGee
Administrator
I am erring on the side of caution. I am erring on the side of caution for those people who really do need a gun right now. I am erring on the side of caution in favor of 2A rights.Kochman said:
Appeasement has not worked in the past, and I see no reason to believe that it will work in this case.
Airplane travel isn't a constitutionally-protected right.Kochman said:
Plan it out better?!? Call the local battered women's shelter and tell those women that they should have planned it out better. I'm sure that will go over well.Kochman said:
I believe in responsible gun ownership, too, but I'm not willing to concede more ground in the 2A realm. As the law stands, it's illegal for me to sell a firearm to anyone when I "know or have reasonable cause to believe" that their possession of same would be illegal. I think that's enough.Kochman said:
We've covered that. Your unwillingness to comprehend it notwithstanding, the short answer is that delaying a right is temporarily denying a right.Kochman said:
Yes, and it's used in a NICS check, which is a deciding process.Kochman said:
Constitutional rights are rarely convenient, either for the citizen or the government. So?Kochman said:
As for passports, like I said, it's been some time since I traveled out of the country. Perhaps they've changed the procedures since I last traveled abroad (~7 years ago), but I cannot recall having ever had my passport checked on the way out of the USA. The operative phrase here may be: "cannot recall."
Kochman said:
Everything is temporary. An unjust prison sentence of 25 years to life is temporary. That you temporarily abridge a civil right is not an excuse for abridging it.
You may not consider handing your personal information over to a stranger so that some third party somewhere, for a fee, can issue a thumbs-up or thumbs down on whether you will be permitted to exercise a right.
Your assertion that this hardship is not undue is conclusory; I do not share it.
@Z
I said that a check should be done. Currently the 4473 is the mechanism.
There is no reason use of 4473 couldn't be expanded to the unlicensed from what I can tell.
Regarding the response of "that won't stop a determined criminal.
1) Nothing will stop a determined criminal...
2) So, in lieu of that, we have a duty to make it harder.
3) It will stop a law abiding citizen from selling the gun to the gun when the 4473 comes back as negative... because they won't want to get hemmed up in the aftermath for selling to a known criminal. As it stands now, we don't know the guy's a criminal (except for those claiming clairvoyance and the ability to "sniff them out" based on their 5 minute chat with the potential buyer of course, we should definitely respect that claim)
4) It will force the criminal to be strictly black market.
5) When a criminal does killings with an illegal gun, it doesn't make the news.
6) When a criminal does the killings with a legally purchased gun despite him not being able to buy legally, it does make the news and doesn't help our cause.
I said that a check should be done. Currently the 4473 is the mechanism.
There is no reason use of 4473 couldn't be expanded to the unlicensed from what I can tell.
Regarding the response of "that won't stop a determined criminal.
1) Nothing will stop a determined criminal...
2) So, in lieu of that, we have a duty to make it harder.
3) It will stop a law abiding citizen from selling the gun to the gun when the 4473 comes back as negative... because they won't want to get hemmed up in the aftermath for selling to a known criminal. As it stands now, we don't know the guy's a criminal (except for those claiming clairvoyance and the ability to "sniff them out" based on their 5 minute chat with the potential buyer of course, we should definitely respect that claim)
4) It will force the criminal to be strictly black market.
5) When a criminal does killings with an illegal gun, it doesn't make the news.
6) When a criminal does the killings with a legally purchased gun despite him not being able to buy legally, it does make the news and doesn't help our cause.
Yes, it is. It isn't specifically mentioned, but it is mentioned in the COTUS. If fact, you have to get licensed (passport) to leave the country in any way shape or form for foreign travel (outside of US & Canada, Puerto Rico etc are US soil), you have to do less to buy a gun.
That's not taking the right away. That's what I asked. What right did you lose?
To lose something is a more permanent state than a temporary situation.
No, the NICS isn't a deciding process either. It is, like the 4473, part of the mechanism used to check if you have had your rights adjudicated away, which is when the decision process took place.
Regarding passport travel on the way out, I've had mine checked. It's generally a temporary thing as we aren't in the business of telling people they can't leave... unlike places like the former USSR. They could have a visa, etc, but maybe not allowed to leave.
Point being, it is still a mechanism/function of the passport, and yes, I've had my passport checked leaving the country. I faced more scrutiny leaving the US to enter Quebec than I did actually entering Quebec (2011).
Regarding the woman in the shelter. That same check prevents her husband from buying a gun and using it without a waiting period on her...
In the meanwhile, restraining orders are quick and shelters are available, etc.
Kochman said:
I agree that it could be expanded, I do not agree that it should be.
Kochman said:
Yet, having unlicensed individuals engage in 4473 checks does not make it harder for someone who does not want to do the check. That is why it is not useful.
Kochman said:
It is possible that a felon would be stupid enough to attempt a purchase with a 4473 check, and that the purchase would be frustrated when the check comes back negative.
Do you understand that this does not keep the felon from getting a gun?
Kochman said:
That criminal's possession of a firearm is already illegal. Do you really think that making it extra super double illegal helps?
Kochman said:
I think the most difficult part of defending civil liberties is in defending the exercise of those liberties against those who exaggerate the cost of exercising them and minimize the burden of infringement.
There are very few things I can guarantee, but I believe I can guarantee this: somewhere at some point in the future someone will be wrongly killed with a legally purchased firearm, and there is nothing you can propose which will prevent that.
I can also guarantee that people will speak and write dangerously and vote unwisely. Foresight restrains us from attempting to prevent those errors because our experience is that the solution is worse than the problem.
As I previously cited here, it does.
Between 2002-2003, over 120k people were denied firearms due to 4473.
That kept them from getting the gun from FFLs.
If we expanded that to all stranger-stranger transfers, it would prevent all but family and black market acquisitions.
Absolutely, because it makes it extra super double more expensive, at a minimum, and is yet another charge you can throw at them during the commission of a crime if they use their illegal gun...
Charges - Crime, illegal possession of firearm, illegal purchase of firearm (instead of, ooops, he bought it at a gun show)
And why does this mean we shouldn't use a 4473?
I've documented that it has stopped a lot of potential crimes (of that 120k, you can't honestly tell me that nothing was prevented).
@ATW
That's de facto the same... because people will not always use the form even if it is law. However, it will punish the irresponsible, which is the same thing you recommend. I support that.
Originally posted by Kochman
Well, in a perfect world there would be no need for background checks because those who committed a crime so heinous that they could no longer be trusted with a firearm would remain locked up or, depending on the severity of their crime, be executed and those so mentally ill would remain institutionalized until their disease could be treated to the point that they are no longer a danger to the public. Through all the debate, I keep asking myself why, if we have people that have proven themselves too evil or insane to be trusted with a gun, are we letting such people go free to present a danger to society in the first place.
However, since our society, in the name of political correctness, refuses to treat mental illness and punish crime appropriately, NICS and 4473's are a necessary evil for licensed FFL's. As I said earlier, ensuring that one does not sell a gun to a prohibited person through a private-party transaction is, in my mind, a matter of personal responsibility but obviously selling only to close personal acquaintences or people with CCL's is impractical for an FFL.
Insofar as what can be done to improve the current system, I agree with you that the prosecution rate for people who lie on the 4473 is ridiculously and unacceptably low. Perhaps if we prosecute and incarcerate the people to lie on the 4473, we can remove them from society before they get a gun by some other means. The prosecution of straw purchases is also very low and, while straw purchase can be a very difficult thing to prove to begin with, I've seen little that the ATF has done to enforce the law (quite the opposite considering Fast & Furious). Finally, it would probably be a good idea to revise the Gun Control Act of 1968 to more clearly define what, exactly, constitutes dealing in firearms thus requiring an FFL (this is extremely vague in the way the law is currently worded).
As far as what can be done to prevent another shooting like Sandy Hook, first and foremost we must do something about school security. The unfortunate fact is that no matter how many laws we pass, there will always be evil and deranged people who wish to do harm to innocents. As it stands, schools are an all-too-inviting target not only because they are often inadequately protected, if protected at all, but also because the most surefire way to get attention from the sensationalist media is to murder a bunch of children. The way I see it, the most effective means to protect our schools is through armed security of some sort be it a uniformed police officer, allowing teachers to carry, or some sort of volunteer program within the community.
Secondly, there desperately needs to be reform in mental health care. I am currently a nursing student and part of my clinical rotations included a psychiatric unit. I am here to tell you that it is a revolving door of people regularly and repeatedly brought in by the police. While the mental health care system of decades past was deplorable due to too quick and easy institutionalization and downright barbaric treatments, I think that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. While the standard for involuntary committal remains "a danger to self or others," proving that standard is extremely difficult. While not necessarily suicidal or homicidal, the altered mental state and resulting impaired judgement makes many mental health patients a legitimate threat to themselves or others albeit an unintentional one.
Finally, I think that people need to begin to realize that the media bears some culpability in these incidents as well. I'm not talking about violent movies and video games here as I think someone who cannot tell the difference between fantasy and reality is probably already deeply disturbed. Instead, I'm talking about the senationalist coverage that such incidents recieve. It seems to me that most of these mass shooters desire to make some sort of deranged statement and doing so requires a large audience. Given the manner in which the media bombard us with pictures of the victims, their families, and the shooter everytime such a thing happens, I cannot help but think about the next mass shooter watching and taking notes somewhere. You may have noticed that I do not mention the names of mass shooters in my posts, this is intentional. By devoting so much attention to such people we give them exactly what they wanted and I, for one, don't want these individuals to be remembered. My hope is that if enough people refuse to give attention to the shooter, perhaps the murder of innocent children will lose whatever sick appeal that it seems to have to these people.
Well, in a perfect world there would be no need for background checks because those who committed a crime so heinous that they could no longer be trusted with a firearm would remain locked up or, depending on the severity of their crime, be executed and those so mentally ill would remain institutionalized until their disease could be treated to the point that they are no longer a danger to the public. Through all the debate, I keep asking myself why, if we have people that have proven themselves too evil or insane to be trusted with a gun, are we letting such people go free to present a danger to society in the first place.
However, since our society, in the name of political correctness, refuses to treat mental illness and punish crime appropriately, NICS and 4473's are a necessary evil for licensed FFL's. As I said earlier, ensuring that one does not sell a gun to a prohibited person through a private-party transaction is, in my mind, a matter of personal responsibility but obviously selling only to close personal acquaintences or people with CCL's is impractical for an FFL.
Insofar as what can be done to improve the current system, I agree with you that the prosecution rate for people who lie on the 4473 is ridiculously and unacceptably low. Perhaps if we prosecute and incarcerate the people to lie on the 4473, we can remove them from society before they get a gun by some other means. The prosecution of straw purchases is also very low and, while straw purchase can be a very difficult thing to prove to begin with, I've seen little that the ATF has done to enforce the law (quite the opposite considering Fast & Furious). Finally, it would probably be a good idea to revise the Gun Control Act of 1968 to more clearly define what, exactly, constitutes dealing in firearms thus requiring an FFL (this is extremely vague in the way the law is currently worded).
As far as what can be done to prevent another shooting like Sandy Hook, first and foremost we must do something about school security. The unfortunate fact is that no matter how many laws we pass, there will always be evil and deranged people who wish to do harm to innocents. As it stands, schools are an all-too-inviting target not only because they are often inadequately protected, if protected at all, but also because the most surefire way to get attention from the sensationalist media is to murder a bunch of children. The way I see it, the most effective means to protect our schools is through armed security of some sort be it a uniformed police officer, allowing teachers to carry, or some sort of volunteer program within the community.
Secondly, there desperately needs to be reform in mental health care. I am currently a nursing student and part of my clinical rotations included a psychiatric unit. I am here to tell you that it is a revolving door of people regularly and repeatedly brought in by the police. While the mental health care system of decades past was deplorable due to too quick and easy institutionalization and downright barbaric treatments, I think that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. While the standard for involuntary committal remains "a danger to self or others," proving that standard is extremely difficult. While not necessarily suicidal or homicidal, the altered mental state and resulting impaired judgement makes many mental health patients a legitimate threat to themselves or others albeit an unintentional one.
Finally, I think that people need to begin to realize that the media bears some culpability in these incidents as well. I'm not talking about violent movies and video games here as I think someone who cannot tell the difference between fantasy and reality is probably already deeply disturbed. Instead, I'm talking about the senationalist coverage that such incidents recieve. It seems to me that most of these mass shooters desire to make some sort of deranged statement and doing so requires a large audience. Given the manner in which the media bombard us with pictures of the victims, their families, and the shooter everytime such a thing happens, I cannot help but think about the next mass shooter watching and taking notes somewhere. You may have noticed that I do not mention the names of mass shooters in my posts, this is intentional. By devoting so much attention to such people we give them exactly what they wanted and I, for one, don't want these individuals to be remembered. My hope is that if enough people refuse to give attention to the shooter, perhaps the murder of innocent children will lose whatever sick appeal that it seems to have to these people.
I keep harping on this one item all the time. There is not one person who can deny what I am about to write, is false.
Back in the day, we had the right to freely travel wherever we wanted, whenever we wanted. That right included all the various (at that time) means to travel with.
Then came the "horseless carriage." Mass production changed the nature of this particular game. Prices of the device came down to the point that ordinary people could afford the device. One didn't need to own lots of land to feed the beast. Nor any of the other impediments to having living animals. A whole new way to travel was introduced and people embraced this new method with zeal.
Registration of those vehicles used in commerce, was not an afterthought. It had already been implemented in ages past. So the various authorities demanded that those in commerce be registered. Shortly after this, licensees were demanded of those who drove these commercial vehicles.
However, those who had registered commercial vehicles and those who were licensed to drive these vehicles began demanding improvements to the structure of the roads they traveled upon. Some cities, counties and then the States, found that they could induce the people to register their vehicles, on a voluntary basis, in order to help pay for these improvements.
In short order, many of the governments found this to be a "cash cow." As the improvements did not cost as much as the money the "volunteers" were giving. By the 1930's, legislation began sweeping the States to make registrations (a personal property tax, if the truth be known), mandatory.
The next problem was that traffic began to get much heavier, in and around the metropolitan centers. Accidents were commonplace, as there were no rules of the road. So rules were authored and voluntary licenses were issued, on the premise that one who passed the licensing tests knew the rules by which to drive and were thus immune from certain aspects of lawsuits arising form accidents.
Another cash cow. States saw the money flowing in and passed laws taking full authority of registrations and licensing away from local authorities and occupied the entire field of public and private movement upon the public roads.
By the end of the forties, most States had mandatory registration. Laws were in place that made it unlawful to place a private vehicle on a public road, without first being registered. Another aspect of this, was reciprocity between the States was negotiated and became a reality. By the end of the fifties, drivers licences became mandatory in all States. Reciprocity was in effect in all States.
The only thing that involved the Federal government was interstate transport. They were there at the beginning with the first DOT rules being made back in the twenties.
By the start of the sixties, what was once a right, was now an established privilege. All with the consent of the very people who once had this unalienable right to travel. Unless it involved a mechanically driven vehicle. We had no right to take that vehicle upon the public roads, unless we first registered the vehicle and then registered ourselves (as fit to drive by the rules of the road).
How do I know this all to be true? I've studied the history of automobiles and our mobile society. It's all there. Out in the open, if you only care to look for yourselves.
This is what is wrong with background checks, registration of first our guns and next ourselves. If you don't see the parallel, then you haven't studied your history.
Those of you that don't see anything wrong with having to prove you are worthy to exercise a fundamental right, are as guilty as our ancesters who never thought about giving up their right to travel.
The rest of you can keep arguing about the "reasonableness" of such laws. I'm against all of them. They ultimately and irrevocably reduce the right to a privilege.
Granted, the NICS check will not be going away. Nor will the 4473's. They have been and will continue to be found constitutional. But that doesn't mean I have to like them. And it sure as hell doesn't mean I have to give in to more restrictions. Shame on you, if you hold a contrary view, as you obviously haven't done your homework, as it regards a conversion of a right to a privilege.
Back in the day, we had the right to freely travel wherever we wanted, whenever we wanted. That right included all the various (at that time) means to travel with.
By foot? Check.
By Horse? Check.
By Carriage? Check.
By wagon? Check.
By Boat or Ship? Check.
If we could buy the item of transportation, we could use it without the say-so of any government body. Ownership of the item guaranteed the right to use the item for the purpose for which we bought the item. It was our right.By Horse? Check.
By Carriage? Check.
By wagon? Check.
By Boat or Ship? Check.
Then came the "horseless carriage." Mass production changed the nature of this particular game. Prices of the device came down to the point that ordinary people could afford the device. One didn't need to own lots of land to feed the beast. Nor any of the other impediments to having living animals. A whole new way to travel was introduced and people embraced this new method with zeal.
Registration of those vehicles used in commerce, was not an afterthought. It had already been implemented in ages past. So the various authorities demanded that those in commerce be registered. Shortly after this, licensees were demanded of those who drove these commercial vehicles.
However, those who had registered commercial vehicles and those who were licensed to drive these vehicles began demanding improvements to the structure of the roads they traveled upon. Some cities, counties and then the States, found that they could induce the people to register their vehicles, on a voluntary basis, in order to help pay for these improvements.
In short order, many of the governments found this to be a "cash cow." As the improvements did not cost as much as the money the "volunteers" were giving. By the 1930's, legislation began sweeping the States to make registrations (a personal property tax, if the truth be known), mandatory.
The next problem was that traffic began to get much heavier, in and around the metropolitan centers. Accidents were commonplace, as there were no rules of the road. So rules were authored and voluntary licenses were issued, on the premise that one who passed the licensing tests knew the rules by which to drive and were thus immune from certain aspects of lawsuits arising form accidents.
Another cash cow. States saw the money flowing in and passed laws taking full authority of registrations and licensing away from local authorities and occupied the entire field of public and private movement upon the public roads.
By the end of the forties, most States had mandatory registration. Laws were in place that made it unlawful to place a private vehicle on a public road, without first being registered. Another aspect of this, was reciprocity between the States was negotiated and became a reality. By the end of the fifties, drivers licences became mandatory in all States. Reciprocity was in effect in all States.
The only thing that involved the Federal government was interstate transport. They were there at the beginning with the first DOT rules being made back in the twenties.
By the start of the sixties, what was once a right, was now an established privilege. All with the consent of the very people who once had this unalienable right to travel. Unless it involved a mechanically driven vehicle. We had no right to take that vehicle upon the public roads, unless we first registered the vehicle and then registered ourselves (as fit to drive by the rules of the road).
How do I know this all to be true? I've studied the history of automobiles and our mobile society. It's all there. Out in the open, if you only care to look for yourselves.
This is what is wrong with background checks, registration of first our guns and next ourselves. If you don't see the parallel, then you haven't studied your history.
Those of you that don't see anything wrong with having to prove you are worthy to exercise a fundamental right, are as guilty as our ancesters who never thought about giving up their right to travel.
The rest of you can keep arguing about the "reasonableness" of such laws. I'm against all of them. They ultimately and irrevocably reduce the right to a privilege.
Granted, the NICS check will not be going away. Nor will the 4473's. They have been and will continue to be found constitutional. But that doesn't mean I have to like them. And it sure as hell doesn't mean I have to give in to more restrictions. Shame on you, if you hold a contrary view, as you obviously haven't done your homework, as it regards a conversion of a right to a privilege.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
When I first started shooting I did a lot of buying/selling/trading guns as I tried different models out. Almost all done FTF locally and arranged on various internet boards. Around here the cheapest walk-in regular hour gun shop has a fee of $30 for a transfer. Some shops won't even do it. None of the big box store do and they are taking over. Would have cost me an additional $1000 over a few years had I had to pay them $30 for each purchase and sale of a firearm. It would have made no one safer.
Additionally, my local shop is only open until 6pm. It isn't easy to meet someone so close to end of work, especially when many people are not permitted to have firearms at work, even in their car. It just makes a huge mess.
In the states that require using an FFL compliance is not high, even among otherwise law abiding citizens.
If FFLs were required to do a transfer of a private transfer free I might go for it, but the gun shops aren't going to like that.
If I could walk into any Sheriffs office 24 hours a day and have someone run the background check I might think about supporting this legislation. As it is now this bill WILL put a burden on me AND many others.
Additionally, my local shop is only open until 6pm. It isn't easy to meet someone so close to end of work, especially when many people are not permitted to have firearms at work, even in their car. It just makes a huge mess.
In the states that require using an FFL compliance is not high, even among otherwise law abiding citizens.
If FFLs were required to do a transfer of a private transfer free I might go for it, but the gun shops aren't going to like that.
If I could walk into any Sheriffs office 24 hours a day and have someone run the background check I might think about supporting this legislation. As it is now this bill WILL put a burden on me AND many others.
Kochman said:
Emphasis added. Note the bolded language. Your citation does not indicate that those individuals were unable to procure firearms. It indicates they were denied an FFL transfer. From the text of your response, I can tell that you understand that denying someone a legal transfer does not deny them the possession of a common item.
Since your suggestion would not deny the possession of a common item to the prohibited population, it cannot achieve its suggested end.
Kochman said:
Your response has two components. First, avoiding a records check for which a fee is required does not increase the cost of a transaction. On the contrary, it decreases the cost. That result is perverse.
Second, the possession of a firearm by a prohibited person is already illegal.
Kochman said:
Because it does not prevent anyone from wrongly killing another person.
Kochman said:
You have not documented that a crime has been stopped. You have described the commission of a separate crime. I can honestly tell you that no one is prevented the possession of a firearm simply because he is denied 4473 transfer.
Your speculation that felons with murder in their hearts were prevented from accomplishing those murders when they were denied a 4473 transfer is implausible.
The burden on the civil right involved is not speculative.
Last edited:
Well, Al, you still have that right.
You may travel by any means available to you that you can afford.
I may engage someone to drive me from Bangor, WA to Bangor, ME.
If I so choose I may go through the process to legally fly myself from Dedham, MA, to Dedham IA. (That process would probably include the building a heliport in those two locations.)
I can pay Amtrak, or I can buy my own train and hire/become the professionals to run it.
If I wanted to walk from Salem, OR, to Salem, MA, I can do it as long as I purchase a continuous tract of land wide enough to walk it. OR file suit with the United States for prohibiting hiking along the Interstate roads. OR find a path from location to location that does not involve said roads.
Every method of travel is still available to me if I choose to exercise it, and/or Pay the money to have it exercised for me.
The principle of denying one form of travel when another is available does have it's corollaries in the right to bear arms. A jurisdiction may ban concealed carry, or Open Carry but not both.
You may travel by any means available to you that you can afford.
I may engage someone to drive me from Bangor, WA to Bangor, ME.
If I so choose I may go through the process to legally fly myself from Dedham, MA, to Dedham IA. (That process would probably include the building a heliport in those two locations.)
I can pay Amtrak, or I can buy my own train and hire/become the professionals to run it.
If I wanted to walk from Salem, OR, to Salem, MA, I can do it as long as I purchase a continuous tract of land wide enough to walk it. OR file suit with the United States for prohibiting hiking along the Interstate roads. OR find a path from location to location that does not involve said roads.
Every method of travel is still available to me if I choose to exercise it, and/or Pay the money to have it exercised for me.
The principle of denying one form of travel when another is available does have it's corollaries in the right to bear arms. A jurisdiction may ban concealed carry, or Open Carry but not both.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
The few people I know of who were stopped at an NICS check had a misdemeanor drug conviction decades before or had something sealed/expunged they thought wouldn't come up and it did.
In all cases, they hired a lawyer to "fix it" and were approved in 6 months.
As long as militaries in the third world have millions of firearms they will be available in the first world for a reasonable price, especially to criminal organizations. Anyone who has done even a cursory investigation of arms trafficking knows this fact.
Al makes a very good point also.
In all cases, they hired a lawyer to "fix it" and were approved in 6 months.
As long as militaries in the third world have millions of firearms they will be available in the first world for a reasonable price, especially to criminal organizations. Anyone who has done even a cursory investigation of arms trafficking knows this fact.
Al makes a very good point also.