Universal Background Check and Universal Gun Registration-Breitbart

[44 AMP]

And that latter expectation is a whole different level of training and experience. If you expect teachers to adopt that responsibility, you have to step up and facilitate their ability to be well-trained for that.

And, don't forget, PAY them commensurate with their expanded responsibilities.

That, right there, is going to prevent schools from doing it. Count on that.

Sorry for the drift, but background checks are being sold to the public as a safety issue, and school killers have gotten past background checks multiple times! So, its all kind of connected.

Seems like every possible solution, from making every citizen prove they are worthy via a clean background check to "arming teachers" is getting air time, nearly everything, save one...

Putting and KEEPING dangerous, violent people in prison, or otherwise away from the public at large and our children. It's a very sad commentary on our commitment to real safety every time I see one of the "most wanted" type shows, and they're after someone not even 30 with half a dozen or more FELONY CONVICTIONS that ought to have kept them in prison until they are 60 or 70 or more. Yet, they are out on the street, and armed if they feel like it, able and most likely willing to continue their criminal lifestyles.

On the news I saw a little while ago (local to my state) they had just picked up a guy armed (stolen pistol) and with dope, on the second day after he had been released from prison. There's somebody no background check will stop, and incarceration only seems to slow him down...

I understand it costs money to keep people in prison, but when are people going to realize (in sufficient numbers) that we are paying in a coin more dear than money.

 

[5whiskey]

Putting and KEEPING dangerous, violent people in prison, or otherwise away from the public at large and our children. It's a very sad commentary on our commitment to real safety every time I see one of the "most wanted" type shows, and they're after someone not even 30 with half a dozen or more FELONY CONVICTIONS that ought to have kept them in prison until they are 60 or 70 or more. Yet, they are out on the street, and armed if they feel like it, able and most likely willing to continue their criminal lifestyles.

A novel idea indeed. That would go back to nickolas Cruz. From all accounts, he should have been in jail with a bond to be released greater than he likely could afford. Or already a convicted felon. The kid put a gun to a family members head, and mutilated animals.

But to your greater point, yes it is true. It is like pulling teeth to get real active prison sentences these days. Even for robbery or violent assaults. Or meth labs in homes with kids present (another issue near and dear to me). About 3 years in prison is the best you can expect from my local jurisdiction for a real crime with a real victim, unless they actually kill or maim someone. Even then, we’re lucky to get 8-10 years. And yes, this is for offenders with extensive prior criminal convictions. Felony convictions. More than 1 or 2.

 

[zukiphile]

...background checks are being sold to the public as a safety issue, and school killers have gotten past background checks multiple times! So, its all kind of connected.

The predictable reaction to an observation that school killers are passing background checks is that the universal background check standards need to be higher. With that mechanism, the standard gets progressively higher until everyone with a mother-in-law is effectively a prohibited person.

 

[Spats McGee]

The predictable reaction to an observation that school killers are passing background checks is that the universal background check standards need to be higher. With that mechanism, the standard gets progressively higher until everyone with a mother-in-law is effectively a prohibited person.

Fixed it, but otherwise dead on.

 

[USNRet93]

I have come to realize that SOME people, and I pray it isn't a lot of people, are just totally IRRATIONAL when the topic of guns comes up. I mean "hoplophobic" as much as claustrophobics can't stand to be in tight places they can't stand to have guns around (or people who like guns).

I recently met an upbeat, cheerful, energetic very actively religious woman who was very pleasant to talk to yet lied through her teeth about the NRA and gun control.

I suspect she embraced "the ends justify the means" philosophy. I dare say she was self righteous to the point of believing being anti-gun was an item of faith of her religion. I don't think I would trust her or have her for a friend. If there were a fire or a flood or a tornado though I suspect we could work together.

I think that it's important to realize that with emotional subjects like 'guns', the people who are dead set against them are as emotionally invested as you are on the other side of the spectrum. BUT 'not have her as a friend'? Hmm..I have lots of friends(and a wife) who are either ignorant of or various levels of anti-gun..WE just don't 'go there'....

BUT my point with Lanza, is that a lot of mass murderers these days have 2 things in common..passing a legit BGC, and documented mental illness/social media posts that talk of killing people with a gun. All I'm saying, with an eye towards the 4th Amendment, is a 'red flag' that 'might' include a visit to said person/family..it 'might' prevent some of these, is all.

 

[zukiphile]

Indeed, Spats. You wouldn't believe the lobbying I had to do to get a BB gun as a lad.

BUT my point with Lanza, is that a lot of mass murderers these days have 2 things in common..passing a legit BGC, and documented mental illness/social media posts that talk of killing people with a gun. All I'm saying, with an eye towards the 4th Amendment, is a 'red flag' that 'might' include a visit to said person/family..it 'might' prevent some of these, is all.

That's the problem with that standard. There isn't any sort of principled limit to it, and once you've let loose the standard, the absence of the limiting principle makes it the rationale for prohibition.

Lanza's family had arms. Making every transfer a matter of record with a government agent or licensee would allow confiscation of arms from any household in which there was some matter of public concern, like a case of the mondays or an ill considered media post. That might prevent some of these. Or it might not, in which case the UBC standard of the day will be portrayed as too lax. The logic of the standard would support increasing the number of red flags that might have prevented some of these.

If one isn't permitted to have his 2d Am. rights if he has used his 1st. Am rights, or his 4th Am. are trimmed because that might have prevented some of these, civil liberties suffer.

 

[USNRet93]

Indeed, Spats. You wouldn't believe the lobbying I had to do to get a BB gun as a lad.



That's the problem with that standard. There isn't any sort of principled limit to it, and once you've let loose the standard, the absence of the limiting principle makes it the rationale for prohibition.

Lanza's family had arms. Making every transfer a matter of record with a government agent or licensee would allow confiscation of arms from any household in which there was some matter of public concern, like a case of the mondays or an ill considered media post. That might prevent some of these. Or it might not, in which case the UBC standard of the day will be portrayed as too lax. The logic of the standard would support increasing the number of red flags that might have prevented some of these.

If one isn't permitted to have his 2d Am. rights if he has used his 1st. Am rights, or his 4th Am. are trimmed because that might have prevented some of these, civil liberties suffer.

Due process I think is the operative term..Nothing as simple as 'like a case of the mondays or an ill considered media post'..his and others media posts were somewhat more troubling than 'ill considered'(Cruz)...

If one isn't permitted to have his 2d Am. rights if he has used his 1st. Am rights, or his 4th Am. are trimmed because that might have prevented some of these, civil liberties suffer.

ALL civil liberties have restrictions, have been 'trimmed', as they should be in certain instances(yelling 'fire' in a theater)..since the Constitution is a 'living' document, not necessarily etched in stone.

There has to be a middle ground considering what is found in these 'monday morning' investigations. Cruz, Lanza, Roof, Dear....others..

No, prohibition is not what I'm advocating...Nor am I advocating Fed Gov't registration.
BUT this exists now, yes?

Making every transfer a matter of record with a government agent or licensee

BUT I'm talking about how 'thin' the BGC is now and no UBC would prevent some of these. I'm saying if the person is 'obviously' a potential threat to himself or others, after 'Due Process'..maybe a closer look..I recognize the possibility of abuse.

 

[zukiphile]

Due process I think is the operative term..Nothing as simple as 'like a case of the mondays or an ill considered media post'..his and others media posts were somewhat more troubling than 'ill considered'(Cruz)...

Due process means an adjudication. We already have that process.

If one isn't permitted to have his 2d Am. rights if he has used his 1st. Am rights, or his 4th Am. are trimmed because that might have prevented some of these, civil liberties suffer.

ALL civil liberties have restrictions, have been 'trimmed', as they should be in certain instances(yelling 'fire' in a theater)..since the Constitution is a 'living' document, not necessarily etched in stone.

It's bit silly to refer to a written document as "living", don't you think? Is the text of the document any more plastic for not having been originally etched into stone?

One is permitted to yell fire in a theater, and no case has ever held otherwise. The suggestions you make aren't accommodations of one right to give sufficient to a different right. Your suggestions lead to a person forfeiting one right if he exercises the other. The point of the BOR isn't that the government may grant exercise of a right so long as everyone still believes that's prudent, but that individuals retain these rights against the government.

There has to be a middle ground considering what is found in these 'monday morning' investigations. Cruz, Lanza, Roof, Dear....others..

No, prohibition is not what I'm advocating...Nor am I advocating Fed Gov't registration.
BUT this exists now, yes?

No, it doesn't so long as non-licensees are permitted to conduct private transfers.

I understand that you are no arguing for prohibition generally, only against people whose writing you find alarming or whose frame of mind gives you pause. It's fair to ask whether such people really need access to media or can be trusted to pilot heavy vehicles, isn't it?

I am unpacking the natural political implication of your offered reasoning. There isn't a middle ground between having a right and not having it. Lots of people aren't exactly right, or write terribly stupid and malevolent things. Your remedy is to speak in response.

Do you recall John duPont? He was an exceedly odd person and ultimately shot an olympic wrestler. It would have saved that wrestler's life if we disarmed exceedly odd people, but we don't constrict civil liberties to eliminate risk. The rationale that weighs risk against liberty kills the liberty because some risk is always present.

BUT I'm talking about how 'thin' the BGC is now and no UBC would prevent some of these. I'm saying if the person is 'obviously' a potential threat to himself or others, after 'Due Process'..maybe a closer look..I recognize the possibility of abuse.

Everyone is a potential threat, so that isn't the issue. If you believe that it is obvious that a person is an immediate threat, you should employ existing legal process. The problem comes when obviousness is measured only in hindsight. In the absence of a valid model for predicting violent crime with substantial certainty, an appeal for pre-emptive disarmament is an appeal to knowledge we do not have.

 

[USNRet93]

If you believe that it is obvious that a person is an immediate threat, you should employ existing legal process.

I guess I'm saying, this isn't happening. Don't think there is any formal structure for this either. There seems to be no connection between a person who states more than once on a public media forum that he/she wants to kill lots of people with a gun, then legally buys one with mayhem as a result.

Then many state the failures committed along the way from start to finish. When investigating aircraft accidents(did a few in the USN)..you always sought the beginning, followed the steps to the end and tried to unravel where that 'chain' could have been disrupted or changed, that would have changed the outcome. Doesn't 'seem' like that is happening, investigation to 'fix' any problems or issues..seems it degrades into a shouting match, loud voices and predictions of dire outcomes(taking everybody's gun or everybody should have a gun)...

BTW-

One is permitted to yell fire in a theater, and no case has ever held otherwise

So if a court can prove that you incite imminent lawlessness by falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, it can convict you. If you incite an unlawful riot, your speech is "brigaded" with illegal action, and you will have broken the law.

 

[zukiphile]

BTW-

One is permitted to yell fire in a theater, and no case has ever held otherwise

So if a court can prove that you incite imminent lawlessness by falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, it can convict you. If you incite an unlawful riot, your speech is "brigaded" with illegal action, and you will have broken the law.

1. That isn't a quote from the Schenk decision.
2. The Schenk decision doesn't prohibit shouting fire in a theater.
3. The article you quote doesn't suggest that Schenk prohibits shouting fire in a crowded theater.
4. If you read your quote you will see that the incitement to riot is the illicit act, not the speech itself.

Schenk is a case in which a fellow was handing out leaflets, the act for which he was prosecuted. The business about yelling fire is part of the reasoning, not the holding.

The court's reasoning in Schenk is poor. Inciting a stampede by shouting firing in a crowded place isn't speech in any conventional sense; it's the equivalent of pulling a fire alarm. No one hears a fire alarm and wonders about the validity of the ideas expressed by it and whether they merit a response.

I guess I'm saying, this isn't happening. Don't think there is any formal structure for this either.

Menacing is already a crime. One can already obtain an ex parte restraining order to prospectively keep someone from doing irreparable harm.

The structure exists. It isn't used as you have suggested because the obviousness you assert is rare.

There seems to be no connection between a person who states more than once on a public media forum that he/she wants to kill lots of people with a gun, then legally buys one with mayhem as a result.

Do the journalists who wished that Nick Sandmann and people like him would just die need to have their liberties re-examined? How often does a hothead threaten to kill people with no ensuing violence, let alone death? Unless the answer is "infrequently" or "less often than not", your proposal is to have the state abridge civil liberties without a rational basis.

This isn't a shouting match. Predictions of the likely result of your proposals isn't a defect in the conversation; it's a positive feature.

 

[44 AMP]

The predictable reaction to an observation that school killers are passing background checks is that the universal background check standards need to be higher.

And just what standards would those be???

Seriously, I'd like to know. Does anyone here know what the current background check "standards" are? I don't. And, does it particularly matter what they are???

I hear people suggesting "enhanced" background checks (for "assault weapons", for example), wanting to make that the law, but NONE of them can tell me what an enhanced background check is, or consists of. the closest any of them manage is to say an "enhanced" check is deeper and more thorough than the standard one. Sounds logical, people accept it, and move on.

But it is MEANINGLESS. An empty phrase used by people who do not know what they are talking about, and just saying something that sounds sensible.

Lets be clear on a few points, a background check doesn't prevent ANYTHING. A background check doesn't stop anything. Doesn't prevent firearm purchase in any way, shape, or form. It is a records check. Period. ALL it does is look at information, and show it (or a summary) to the person running the check. It is not the check that denies or approves purchase, it is what the check looks at that does it, not the check itself. It is the record of the ACTS done by the person being checked that determine if they recognized as prohibited persons, or not.

That decision is made using the information provided by the check, the check itself does nothing but provide information (and only if it is there to be found). When we say "passed or failed the background check" we aren't speaking precisely. Good enough for casual conversation, not good enough for making laws or court rulings.

People seem to think that, if bad guys are getting past the background checks, then the solution is to make the checks "tougher" or "more in depth", and that will find things that would prohibit those bad guys who currently get passed.. That is a fantasy.

The "standards" for prohibited person classification are set in LAW. Not in regulatory requirements that can be changed "in house". It, literally, requires an act of Congress to change the LAW.

So, short of new laws or changes to existing laws, requiring the full usual legislative process, there is no "making the standards tougher". You CAN make the background check more in depth, but at that point, it changes from being a check to being an investigation.

Investigations take time, and cost serious money. Forget cheap and easy. Forget "instant". They can cost thousands of dollars in man hours, and in the end it still comes down to the same thing, did the person being investigated ever do anything that meets the existing legal standards? IF they didn't, you've just wasted all that enhanced effort. If they did, what do you think the odds are that there is already a record of the disqualifying offense, one that shows up with the "standard" check?

Ok, maybe you find a handful of cases where there is something there, and it didn't get reported so the regular check sees it. That's great. Now, how much time (and money) does that take?? DO we force people to wait, days, weeks? Months??? for that investigation to be completed? DO we make ALL firearms transfers match (or exceed???) the investigative requirements of NFA firearms?? Spend thousands of dollars investigating each and every gun transfer??

Not happening, that I can see. Nor should it. It's a satisfying emotional idea that we ought to be able to take the guns away, or even lock up people who write/say "disturbing" things. But is it really such a good idea to give (or allow) that kind of power to elected officials, (let alone un-elected ones)?

All well and good, as long as the people deciding what is "disturbing" make decisions that you agree with. What happens when they decide YOU are the one with "disturbing" ideas??? hmm?

"Hi!, we're from the government, and we're here to help you. You've made some social media posts that have upset some people, so we're going to take your guns, and lock you up for a while, just as a precaution, you understand. Oh, and after we let you out, you get to wear this yellow star, or pink triangle, or Scarlett Letter...for the rest of your natural life...just as a precaution, you understand..."


Think that's too far fetched? Think that could never happen in America? Read history....and read it without the blinders of a political agenda. Amazing what you can find...

 

[kmw1954]

A For What it's Worth,
My brother is a Dr. of Psychology and we have had the conversation many times over the past few years, since before the Colorado theater shooting, and have come to agreement that "given the correct set of circumstances each and every human on this planet is capable of killing another human". Self preservation or the saving of a Loved One is a strong instinct. So the question really becomes how do we write a law that will cover this action? How do we know at what point someone will kill. How to write a law that defines Human Nature.

 

[zukiphile]

KMW, indeed. The potential to injure another is part of our rational moral order.

The predictable reaction to an observation that school killers are passing background checks is that the universal background check standards need to be higher.

And just what standards would those be???

Seriously, I'd like to know. Does anyone here know what the current background check "standards" are? I don't. And, does it particularly matter what they are???

In this context, I believe people are referring to the check of the system by which FFL transfers are conducted. Accordingly, when someone refers to an enhanced check, one needs to ask him how he would enhance that.

A VA finding that you need help with your checkbook?
A doc's report that you've ever thought about suicide?
An ex-spouse's anxiety that you could be violent?
A disorderly conduct conviction from an argument with a neighbor?
A domestic violence allegation?
Insufficient likes on Facebook?

Last night, the fellow across the intersection from me had his high beams on. I flashed mine seven times before he turned them down. Shouldn't I be flagged to prohibit any transfers until I've been checked out for murderous intent?

 

[sigarms228]

Originally Posted by zukiphile:

Do you recall John duPont? He was an exceedly odd person and ultimately shot an olympic wrestler. It would have saved that wrestler's life if we disarmed exceedly odd people, but we don't constrict civil liberties to eliminate risk. The rationale that weighs risk against liberty kills the liberty because some risk is always present.

That's a powerful statement zukiphile that sums it up nicely. Thanks.

 

[sigarms228]

Is this really what some of you want by expanding UBC? This seems to be where we are headed. What other Constitutional Right requires this level or scrutiny by government officials to exercise?

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...ther-anti-gun-legislation-introduced-in-house

House Bill 888, sponsored by Representative Daniel Didech (D-59), would require Firearm Owner’s Identification Card (FOID) applicants to provide a list of their social media accounts to the Department of State Police (DPS) and for DPS to conduct a search of the accounts.

http://ilga.gov/legislation/billsta...A=101&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=115206&SessionID=108

Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that the Department of State Police shall conduct a search of the purchasers' social media accounts available to the public to determine if there is any information that would disqualify the person from obtaining or require revocation of a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card. Provides that each applicant for a Firearm Owner's Identification Card shall furnish to the Department of State Police a list of every social media account.

 

[44 AMP]

Provides that the Department of State Police shall conduct a search of the purchasers' social media accounts available to the public to determine if there is any information that would disqualify the person from obtaining or require revocation of a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card.

I have to wonder what information could that be??? Are disqualifying convictions NOT reported to the govt, but are reported on social media???

Is there something other than a conviction that will disqualify a person from getting an FOID card or have their issued card revoked? What could that be??

Provides that each applicant for a Firearm Owner's Identification Card shall furnish to the Department of State Police a list of every social media account.

Ok, what are they going to do if my list of social media accounts is N/A or "none"??? Will they deny me for that? Or accuse me of not complying with the law, and therefore deny my card request because of it???


Does TFL count as social media? and need to be reported???

What's next? Demanding a list of books I checked out from the library? oh, the horror!!

 

[kmw1954]

So where does all this leave me? I do not have a CCW and do not feel the need for one. I do not have a Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat or any other account and don't want one. Then the other day I went to log into my bank and in the log-in for security they now ask for a Cell phone number, well I don't have one of those either. Are they going to deny me from logging into my bank account?

 

[sigarms228]

I have to wonder what information could that be??? Are disqualifying convictions NOT reported to the govt, but are reported on social media???

Is there something other than a conviction that will disqualify a person from getting an FOID card or have their issued card revoked? What could that be??



Ok, what are they going to do if my list of social media accounts is N/A or "none"??? Will they deny me for that? Or accuse me of not complying with the law, and therefore deny my card request because of it???


Does TFL count as social media? and need to be reported???

What's next? Demanding a list of books I checked out from the library? oh, the horror!!

Hopefully this will never come to be but it is a bit disturbing it even has been proposed. If it does become law it will be interesting to see how the Illinois State Police handle it. Some people have very extensive social media history that could take a whole lot of hours to review and I doubt they have the needed manpower. They would probably have to drastically raise the FOID fee to get more manpower. Then becomes the question how to determine who exactly is qualified to do such searches and what is done about it.

According to what the FOID background search looks for the only thing I can think of that would be of interest would be evidence that one might be "deemed mentally defective" which is a big can of worms and would probably include involvement of court orders, deeper investigation, and other qualified professional personnel though I am not sure offhand in Illinois how that is legally done but I bet it costs a lot of money. What is worrisome is that a large percentage of the population believes one is mentally defective just because they might wear a red hat with a certain four letter word on it. So it might be difficult to do a fair unbiased review on one's social media history and be ripe for abuse of one's civil rights.

I am no way an expert in what and what not is social media but I believe membership to various forums where one posts under a pseudonym would qualify but I might be wrong.

What could be next is that in New York they have talked about requiring to be able to search one's internet history as part of a background check to purchase a firearm. I think everyone in and running for public office should volunteer first.

 

[Tom Servo]

Ok, what are they going to do if my list of social media accounts is N/A or "none"?

Probably denied for "insufficient information." If this were to pass, I could see many gun owners leaving platforms like Facebook and Twitter.

Part of the problem (and the people pushing for these regulations know it) is that people will often post things on impulse they shouldn't make public. We see daily stories about politicians and celebrities doing it. Heck, I once decided not to hire someone based on something troubling I found on her Facebook feed.

Then we have the question of what kind of speech disqualifies someone and who sets the criteria. There are some very real 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendment concerns here.

We're going to have more incidents like Vegas and Parkland so long as gun-control advocates and politicians push gun bans rather than addressing the underlying factors. The media is doing a very good job of demonizing us. A few more of those, and we may very well see support for something like this.

 

[USNRet93]

We're going to have more incidents like Vegas and Parkland so long as gun-control advocates and politicians push gun bans rather than addressing the underlying factors.

Not trying to argue but you mentioned Vegas shooter..have there been any 'underlying factors' discovered with that guy?