Background Checks

[USNRet93]

Bad guys who can’t pass a background check have no need to go through the trouble of locating private sellers;

Never said they were 'bad guys', I said they couldn't pass a BGC, for whatever reason.
And I said that 'loophole' will be closed IMHO..I didn't say I agreed with it, just an observation in this really dopey era.

If you fail a BGC, for whatever reason, and didn't lie on the 4473..no potential prosecution will result..yes?

Right now, you can travel up to Wyoming..find a gent at a local gun show, who is a private individual who rented a table..and buy a gun from w/o any BGC..NO comment on the goods or bads, just saying that is the type of sale that 'may' be made illegal in the future by the feds..
IMHO....eh?

If you try to purchase a gun and you receive a firearms transfer denial during the background check, you can appeal that denial if you do not meet any of the above criteria and you believe a mistake has been made.

Approximately, one percent of firearms transfers are denied and many times it because of mistaken identity or incorrect records at NICS. Therefore, many firearms transfer denial appeals are successful.

 

[Doyle]

Right now, you can travel up to Wyoming..find a gent at a local gun show, who is a private individual who rented a table..and buy a gun from w/o any BGC..NO comment on the goods or bads, just saying that is the type of sale that 'may' be made illegal in the future by the feds..
IMHO....eh?

That is ALREADY against the law. You are a resident of CO. You cannot legally travel to WY and purchase a firearm without going thru a WY FFL for a long gun or a CO FFL for a handgun.

 

[Spats McGee]

. . . . Right now, you can travel up to Wyoming..find a gent at a local gun show, who is a private individual who rented a table..and buy a gun from w/o any BGC..NO comment on the goods or bads, just saying that is the type of sale that 'may' be made illegal in the future by the feds..
IMHO....eh?

Unless you're a Wyoming resident, that's already illegal. You know that, right?

(a) It shall be unlawful-- . . . . (3) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to transport into or receive in the State where he resides (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, the State where it maintains a place of business) any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State, except that this paragraph (A) shall not preclude any person who lawfully acquires a firearm by bequest or intestate succession in a State other than his State of residence from transporting the firearm into or receiving it in that State, if it is lawful for such person to purchase or possess such firearm in that State, (B) shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a firearm obtained in conformity with subsection (b)(3) of this section, and (C) shall not apply to the transportation of any firearm acquired in any State prior to the effective date of this chapter;


18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (West)(emphasis supplied)

 

[Tom Servo]

Bad guys who can’t pass a background check have no need to go through the trouble of locating private sellers; because if they go to an FFL and fail a background check, nothing will be done about it.

I can attest to that. In fact, I've done so in court. When I was in the business, I had the Blue File. It contained cheap USB drives with camera footage of denied straw purchases, copies of the relevant paperwork, and a log of calls to various law-enforcement agencies who failed to take an interest.

In fact, when Congress held their hearings on background checks after Newtown, the police commissioner from Baltimore testified in favor. A Republican Representative asked him why his city had never prosecuted any Brady Act violations on his watch, and his response was, "those are paper crimes. I don't have time to go after paper crimes." Yet he was advocating for creating more of these "paper crimes."

It's these type of answers that show how little gun owners care about the problem.

That's the kind of cheap emotional appeal that really doesn't belong in conversations about major social policy.

Let's say I advocate banning certain books from the school library as a way of reducing teen drug use. You have every right to stand up and tell me that's a ludicrous idea. It doesn't mean you don't care about teen drug use. It doesn't mean you're in the pocket of Big Pharma, and it doesn't mean that the 1st Amendment is killing our children.

That's one of the more craven and dishonest bits of chicanery gun-control advocates love to push, and it's a blatant ad hominem. I can grieve for the victims, and I can want change. Just because I don't want their definition of change doesn't mean I don't care.

 

[USNRet93]

No I didn’t. So I see a FS ad in WY of a private gun sale, I can’t go up there and buy it? Didn’t know that was illegal.

 

[Spats McGee]

No I didn’t. So I see a FS ad in WY of a private gun sale, I can’t go up there and buy it? Didn’t know that was illegal.

Every interstate transfer of a firearm must go through an FFL. The transfer of a long gun may go through an FFL in the tranferor's state of residence or the transferee's state of residence. The transfer of a handgun must go through an FFL in the transferee's state of residence. In both cases, a background check is required.

 

[FITASC]

What on earth does alcohol or controlled substances have to do with mass shootings? Nothing. It's these type of answers that show how little gun owners care about the problem.

Actually, most mass shooters were on controlled substances at one time or another - most were psychotropic drugs for the treatment of things like ADHD and similar.

 

[L2R]

There is no magic by- passing of state or federal laws because someone put up a tent.

Gun free zones and the gun show loop-holes exist only in the minds of those who repeat it or want others to believe in it.

 

[44 AMP]

No I didn’t. So I see a FS ad in WY of a private gun sale, I can’t go up there and buy it? Didn’t know that was illegal.

As an out of state resident, you can still go up there and buy it. What can't legally happen is you give the guy the cash and he gives you the gun and you go home with it. You must go through an FFL with all other requirements applying.

Been that way since 1968, so, its been the law for a bit over 50 years.

Actually, most mass shooters were on controlled substances at one time or another - most were psychotropic drugs for the treatment of things like ADHD and similar.

Actually, most mass shooters ate bread, or a bread product at one time or another.

Correlation is NOT causation.

It is possible that you may find evidence that prescription drugs and/or illegal controlled substances had some effect in causing a mass shooting, but you need to look at each individual case, AS an individual case.

 

[spacemanspiff]

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.

You can go buy as much accelerants, matches, kerosene, lighters, knives, machetes, hammers, screwdrivers, electric drills, chainsaws, should I continue with this list? You can buy all that without any kind of background check, or mental health check, not even have to complete any form that announces your intent with any of that.

And if for example, you and your spouse had a horrible breakup and she lies about you assaulting or threatening her, (or even if you actually did do those things!), no one would come confiscate all those dangerous non-firearm objects from your possession.

So why the fuss about that AR and a ton of ammo? When a person is intent on doing harm to others, or even to themselves, do you think they are stopped merely by the lack of a firearm? No, because EVIL intent cannot be governed by legislation.

 

[7.62 man]

All the background checks in the world can tell what a person with a gun will do tomorrow, much less two or three years into the future.
So background checks are not worth the paper they are written on.
The most a background check can do is prevent a known criminal from buying a gun.

 

[FITASC]

Actually, most mass shooters ate bread, or a bread product at one time or another.

Correlation is NOT causation.

Yep, and they drive cars.

The facts are most of the white shooters were on psychotropic drugs for ADHD and similar issues AND these drugs DO have a direct correlation to the mental issues most of these mass shooters had when they committed these crimes.

Your analogy is like saying all those coal miners who suffered from black lung also ate sandwiches and their exposure to the other elements had no bearing

 

[doofus47]

I'm okay with integrating more databases that list people that already should be banned: people with mental health issues, criminals, etc, where those untapped databases exist already.
Creating laws that make owning, practicing with, carrying a self-defense weapon more difficult for the general citizen are silly.
After horrific events like these of the past week, everyone scrubs their brains for ways to keep this from repeating. Cutting this type of event off at the gate is a natural strategy in a world with a prophylactic mindset. And when all you have is a hammer, all problems look like a nail.

 

[44 AMP]

..these drugs DO have a direct correlation to the mental issues most of these mass shooters had when they committed these crimes.

Agreed there is a correlation. Disagree that a correlation is a blanket cause. How many people in the country are on those drugs and do NOT shoot anyone??

Your analogy is like saying all those coal miners who suffered from black lung also ate sandwiches and their exposure to the other elements had no bearing

Disagree. My analogy is simply an example of something that can be correlated with something else. You're reading more into it than I said.

One can correlate anything that happens on earth (or in our universe) if your standards are broad enough. Being able to correlate some things does not automatically mean one always causes the other. They might, they might not, each case needs to be looked at as an individual case.

 

[USNRet93]

Every interstate transfer of a firearm must go through an FFL. The transfer of a long gun may go through an FFL in the tranferor's state of residence or the transferee's state of residence. The transfer of a handgun must go through an FFL in the transferee's state of residence. In both cases, a background check is required.

Even tho illegal, gotta wonder how often it happens..Saw a video(which I can't find) of a Colorado gent, buying an AR type from a guy who pulled it outta his trunk, 'yer not a felon right?..snicker, snicker'....$400 later, the guy walked away with it.

 

[Sharkbite]

Even tho illegal, gotta wonder how often it happens..Saw a video(which I can't find) of a Colorado gent, buying an AR type from a guy who pulled it outta his trunk, 'yer not a felon right?..snicker, snicker'....$400 later, the guy walked away wit

That is exactly why background checks without registration wont work to keep guns out of criminal hands.

Illegal street sales will continue. Stolen guns will continue to change hands regardless of any BGC laws passed.

 

[zxcvbob]

Background checks are not intended to keep guns out of criminals' hands, that will happen occasionally and be used to prove they are on the right track and just need more... The next step will be registration. And that won't work either so the next step confiscation. The end game is the career criminals will still have guns, and police and oligarchs will still have guns, and both groups will prey on the the disarmed populace.

That's the Democrats' utopia, and the Republicans in power are fine with it because they consider themselves the oligarchs. They are playing a long game because if they go too fast there might be an armed uprising.

 

[Spats McGee]

Even tho illegal, gotta wonder how often it happens..Saw a video(which I can't find) of a Colorado gent, buying an AR type from a guy who pulled it outta his trunk, 'yer not a felon right?..snicker, snicker'....$400 later, the guy walked away with it.

And? I've seen a video in which a 13-year old allegedly buys a rifle at a gun show. I suspect some creative editing in that one. Even if true, though, it doesn't necessarily follow that everyone should have to go through UBCs on every transfer.

 

[Sharkbite]

it doesn't necessarily follow that everyone should have to go through UBCs on every transfer.

Exactly. I have a bunch of guns already. More then enough to equip my entire neighborhood . How does doing a background check on me to buy ANOTHER gun make society safer????

 

[44 AMP]

How does doing a background check on me to buy ANOTHER gun make society safer????

this is the same point I have raised numerous times.

Between the facts that background checks do not and cannot cover everyone, and that the various agencies that prosecute crimes seem uninterested in prosecuting people who break the law trying to buy a gun, any and everyone who tells us that background checks are the answer (or even a necessary part of the answer) is selling us "a bill of goods". (aka "wolf tickets", aka LYING!!)