Background Checks

Status
Not open for further replies.
How about background checks for the purchase of alcohol and recreational drugs-tied into the driver's license ? A "hit" on your license-a DUI conviction-no booze for you !
 
Common sense is not to common

It's not just a background check for purchasing a gun, it's a background check for transferring a gun to someone outside your immediate family, (the proposals I've seen lately have an exemption for immediate family) which is a nebulous term that could include letting someone else shoot your gun at the range.
Click to expand...

It is my understanding that this and other ridiculous conditions are listed in the proposed; Extended Background Checks.. I am and Hunter Safety Instructor and routinely transport our teaching firearms. They belong to two conservation clubs and during a typical class, will be fired by a large number of folks and yes, will be transported to be cleaned and inspected by some of the instructors. ….. ;)

Be Safe !!!
 
What about improperly-and maliciously-and false information in the database. Say an ex-wife is angry because you won't increase the child support payments. She claims you "threatened" her and....people with common names. Arrests-but no conviction, charges dismissed, etc.
 
Tom Servo said:
Giving them extra background checks or a registry or whatever isn't going to placate them. They'll just be back next year pushing for another assault weapons ban. In light of that, there is absolutely no reason to negotiate.
Click to expand...

I believe that HughScot employs a suing for peace paradigm to this political conflict. He isn't the only writer here who makes this appeal, and I've no reason to believe that his sentiment is insincere.

In the Sue for Peace paradigm, you are in a fight you know you are going to lose. You are the Kaiser in 1917 or a pedestrian in a park facing a mugger. If you are the Kaiser, you consent to the terms at Versailles because at least you don't lose everything. If you are the pedestrian, you say "Here, take my wallet!" so he isn't searching your corpse for it. Both require some level of confidence that the other party will abide by the terms.

That paradigm is not applicable to political conflicts. There is no such thing as a permanent settlement of terms on which the adversaries will proceed. If there were, the response to Dayton could be "Look at the 1968 GCA. We didn't agree to that new restriction you want, so no can do." The political model is more like a nature program in which the lions look for the lame member of the herd to fall out of step. It's the weakness that precipitates the attack.
 
Last edited:
in possession of a document, like a concelaled handgun permit, that exempts you from the background check;
Click to expand...

Depends on the state you live in and WHO issues the CCW permit. Here in FLA NICS check is done regardless of what you have in your wallet
 
The fact that I can go to a store, buy an AR with tons of ammo and be back home in 30 minutes is an issue.

I am all for background checks, safety courses, and waiting periods. They wouldn't affect me and shouldn't affect any law abiding citizen either.

And I am 100% for the 2nd amendment but we as a society can't act like adults so until we can, things like background checks need to be implemented.
 
Adam Bomb said:
I am all for background checks, safety courses, and waiting periods. They wouldn't affect me and shouldn't affect any law abiding citizen either.
Click to expand...

Presumably they would affect law abiding citizens if they became legal requirements.

Adam Bomb said:
And I am 100% for the 2nd amendment but...
Click to expand...

That's an interesting construction.
 
HughScot said:
Maybe the laws have changed but I've bought several rifles over the years and never had a background check. Handguns yes, rifles no.
Click to expand...
From an FFL, or from a private seller?

Do you have a carry permit? Were you asked to show it?
 
AdamBomb said:
And I am 100% for the 2nd amendment but we as a society can't act like adults so until we can, things like background checks need to be implemented.
Click to expand...
The Second Amendment says nothing about passing a background check, so you are not 100% for the Second Amendment.
 
Simple:

1. No UBC can function w/o universal registration -- which is an anathema to the whole purpose of the Founders that the whole of The People shall be armed ... w/o government controlling forces involved -- in a society governed by consent at the most basically enforceable level by those same People.

2. If "transfer" shall encompass such mundane transfer acts as leaving your wife w/ a weapon in the house; handing a weapon to your son/friend to go hunting; allowing someone to try your weapon at the range; teaching someone gun safety while handling a weapon.... (you get the picture.)

3. There is no practical mechanism to handle the volume of background checks if EVERY change of possession (hand-off) between two individuals requires one.

4. Nothing can be set up to oversee/restrict street corner sales with the gangbangers -- wherefrom most "gun violence" occurs.

5. If there's no practical way to control/enforce a law, don't be so utterly STUPID as to pass such a law.

6. Such stupidly-unenforceable laws (will) make instant felons out of the better part of 70-80 million people.

Instant . . . .
 
Last edited:
Onward Allusion said:
And there you have it... Every purchase from a sporting goods store, gun shop, big box...etc...is background checked. The only exceptions are private Intrastate sales. However, States like Illinois require private sales to be background checked through its FOID system. The so call "gun show loophole" doesn't exist because either the seller is a private individual or a dealer, in which case background checks already apply (either directly or indirectly).

Amazing (or not) how the media bends this to their own form of truth.
Click to expand...
It is interesting about Illinois as we do have a UBC requirement that works with the FOID system which is much much more stringent than normal background checks because the FOID database is updated daily to flag for revocation any FOID holders that incurred a violation of having a FOID card.

https://www.ispfsb.com/Public/Firearms/FOID/PersonToPersonFirearmTransfer.aspx

Yet recently the democrats in Illinois found this not good enough, though so far efforts have failed to change this. Why? Because there was no registration component with the state of Illinois even though the potential buyer was approved by the FOID system. What we know again is that in numerous examples including California and new Zealand is that registration is wanted for future confiscation of firearms.

When insane psychopaths have proven they will murder their mother to get the firearm they want to do their mayhem and shoot up a school it is clear that background checks of any sort will not prevent these horrid mass shootings.
 
Did anyone read that BS liberal article the op posted a link to ? Walmart should use it's financial power to over ride the 2nd Amendment .
 
1. No UBC can function w/o universal registration --
Click to expand...

I disagree. I believe it is entirely possible to run a background check system WITHOUT registering the gun, or even providing any details about the gun itself.

The check is done on YOU, NOT the gun.

However, that being said, there is no plan being offered (or acceptable to one side) that does NOT include detailed information about the gun and you, which is easily turned into "universal registration".

This is DELIBERATE!!!

We could, simply check our CITIZENS and leave what gun they want to buy completely out of the equation. We COULD simply put an identifier on the ID of any and all prohibited persons. Why aren't we even discussing doing that??

I believe that is because that doesn't further the agenda of the people who want all guns removed from private hands. They don't want, and won't accept any solution but their own, despite the constant claims of being willing to compromise, and wanting "common sense", their behavior is otherwise.

I did read the linked article, and its clear to me that the author has already decided that the NRA is to blame for mass murder. TO me, that removes all credibility, so nothing they say is worthy of consideration.

And, besides which, what they are saying is both stupid and unethical, and might even be illegal.

Now, can anyone explain to me, in small words I can understand just what an "extended" or "enhanced" background check is??
 
The registration = confiscation and UBCs can’t work using the existing 1968 GCA infrastructure without registration has been explained a dozen times here. And yet there are still members here who support UBCs. I can’t tell you why they continue to ignore that argument or downplay it.

The last federal attempt at UBCs in 2013 excused CHL holders from having to undergo a NICS check; but it still forced them to go to an FFL and fill out a 4473 for the transfer. There is only one reason for that and its got nothing to do with making sure that person is “safe” to own a gun.*

*At least as safe as the Virginia Tech shooter, the Sutherland Springs shooter, or any of the more than a dozen mass shooters who passed the same background check.
 
HughScot said:
Maybe the laws have changed but I've bought several rifles over the years and never had a background check. Handguns yes, rifles no. Oh well times change.
Click to expand...

It has been illegal to buy a firearm* from a store without a background check since 1997 at a minimum, and arguably 1994. So unless the last rifle you bought was 22 years ago, a background check was done.

*As defined by federal law, blackpowder firearms and some firearms made prior to 1898 are not legally considered firearms.
 
Now, can anyone explain to me, in small words I can understand just what an "extended" or "enhanced" background check is??
Click to expand...

Sounds like something above and beyond current background check. I see psychological evaluation, review of medical history and prescription drugs (HIPPA be damned), and review of social media history often mentioned.
 
Last edited:
adamBomb said:
nd I am 100% for the 2nd amendment but we as a society can't act like adults so until we can, things like background checks need to be implemented.
Click to expand...

Society doesn’t act like an adult. Individuals in society act like adults. And like any communal group, not all of them will act responsibly. We don’t take rights away from the individuals who do act responsibly when that happens; because individuals who consistently act like adults are a rare enough commodity, and punishing them for the acts of others WILL create a society of witless manchildren.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top