"Why you should oppose instant background checks"

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Keiller TN

New member
This is the title of an article by Chris BeHanna.
"by Chris BeHanna <behanna@fast.net>
In recent years, it has become faddish to support instant background checks (IBCs for short) at the point of sale to determine whether or not a person is eligible to buy a gun. Some sort of identifying information would be called in to a state agency that would then look the person up in a database and respond with a ``yea'' or a ``nay.'' A variation might use some sort of ``smart'' ID card that the prospective purchaser bears that encodes the ``yea'' or ``nay'' directly and that could be checked by either a magnetic card reader or a barcode reader.

Without question, it is desirable to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals. What people have to decide is whether or not that desire is worth empowering the state to decide who should and who should not be able to buy guns. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) readily admits that as many as 93% of crime guns are not purchased through legal channels; hence, point of sale checks at dealers will at best make only the tiniest, most barely discernible scratch in the surface of the illegal firearms trade. What they will do, however, is require law abiding citizens to prove their innocence in order to obtain an ID card that allows them to purchase guns. This practice is completely opposite the longstanding doctrine of presumption of innocence, in which a person is presumed to be innocent until proven otherwise. Further, the state is not supposed to have the authority to allow or to disallow citizens to purchase guns as if such a purchase was a privilege to be dispensed at the whim of the state. The right to keep and bear arms (RKBA, for short), cannot properly function as ``an iron fist in a velvet glove'' to deter state encroachment upon the rights of the people if it is transformed from a right held exclusively by the people into a privilege that is granted by the state."
The rest of the article is at
FreeRepublic



------------------
"The wicked flee when no man pursues: but the righteous are bold as a lion." (Prov. 28:1)
 
The instant check system does not bother me provided we amend this thing to the effect that if the NICS goes down, three days and the gun is yours, whether, your info was submitted or not.

The impetus should be placed on the government to keep its ducks in a row. One way to do this would be to sitpulate that if the system goes down, the Feds have three days to fix it or everything goes cash and carry from that point on. The burden of proof is on the government----not us. To those who might try to initiate litigation should a gun get into the wrong hands, do we sue parole boards when parolees commit crimes?
 
"I don't have a problem with instant background checks, per se."

Really? Try this scenario. South-Central Indianapolis, Columbus, Miami. Riots after an unpopular court decision. Shop owners rush to gunshops to buy guns so they can protect their stores as the Koreans successfully did in LA.

Meanwhile, in a town back east with a brand new FBI building housing the NICS computers, a bureaucrat gets a phone call. Someone with a higher paygrade has decided that allowing more guns into the situation will just "cause more bloodshed."

All sales in from these FFLs in these zipcodes will be halted, for the General Welfare. Or, heck, all sales across the country are halted. What the hey. That would be 100,000 "felons, fugitives, stalkers, and other people" who were stopped by the Brady Law.

The NICS requires that you must get government permission to buy a gun. Prior restraint. Anti-2A.

A tool of tryrants, waiting in the shed, all sharp and purty, ready to be used.

Rick
Register Reporters
 
Submitting to ANY form of government bureacracy violates our basic freedoms, and is submission to tyranny in its truest form.

This (NICS) perpetuates the centralization of government power each and every time another American says, "It's OK, go ahead and intrude upon my privacy." By giving the federal government more and more power to control our lives (and make no mistake about it, that's exactly what they're doing here), we end up with eroded rights, fewer freedoms, and a more powerful central government.

The federal government is nothing but a disease, masquerading as a cure.
 
INSTANT Background Checks WOULD be a BLESSING ... New Jersey requires a "Purchase Permit" for every handgun you buy. The gun that you purchase is recorded on the permit and subsequently used to register the firearm.

Before you can buy a gun, you have to go down to the police station DURING REGULAR BUSINESS HOURS (try explaining to your boss why you need the morning off) and fill out an application -- by the way, a reason of self defense for buying the gun will not fly in most cases and the application will be denied.

After filling out the application, you have to schedule an appointment to be fingerprinted (again, DURING REGULAR BUSINESS HOURS -- so that you can take more time off from work) -- never mind the fact that they have your prints on file from the last time that you purchased a gun (you have to do it all over again).

Then, the police department does a not so instant background check (including contacting the references that you provided). This process can be completed as quickly as a couple of weeks (depending on the town) but half a year is usually the average with waits in excess of a year not being unheard of.

If you dotted all of your "i's" and cross all of your "t's" and your references did the same, you will be issued a permit to purchase a firearm.

(Despite all of this red tape, New Jersey has a higher rate of gun violence than Vermont. Could it be that all of these restrictions only apply to law-abiding citizens while the criminals get their firearms on the black market and they [the criminals] are the source of the problem in the first place? No, that can't be it.)

Compare this process in Jersey to the IBC. Which would you prefer? If the MMM get their way, even the procedures in New Jersey might seem like a blessing. It's time to get out there and vote & let our elected officials know how we feel about all of this.

Share what you know, learn what you don't -- FUD
fud-nra.gif
 
Why do we now have to go through a background check for each gun purchase? Is it because the Federal government is keeping track of each weapon we own? I guess it could be because I might be qualified at one time and be disqualified at another time after I had committed a crime.
 
Paul tells it like it is.

Try, "Guilty until proven innocent".
That's what your doing ervery time you have to succumb to the system. If the system is down, then you have nothing to prove, do you. We're all guilty of being a felon, or have been adjudicated mentally incompetent.

Sad state of affairs we've allowed ourselves to be in. Rather like being backed into a coroner, err I mean corner.

The crash this weekend should have been ample proof of what's to be expected in the future.

Here's one for ya guys & gals.
Suppose the FBI decides to give all their agents a paid, extended weekend. Say, 5-7 days, for good behavior of course (wrapped around a Holiday weekend).
What happens to your NICS then? Do you think the ATF would encourage FFL's to go ahead with the transaction, it'll probably be OK. If you can vouche for them, then you're accountable for the consequences.

Don't think this could happen? How about the next time gov decides they're broke. Who do you think the Socialists are going to slice first?
I'd say the FBI and the NICS system, then they can achieve their agenda, and lock it all up. But then, we wouldn't let that happen would we? We have too much to lose. Either way, you've been kidnapped, and held for ransom..until mummy pays up.

Best Regards,
Don



------------------
The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
Adolf Hitler
 
Donny...

On the money pardner.

The same holds true for CCW/CHL holders. They've relinquished their right to keep and bear arms, and have allowed the government to license that right. Licenses are revocable, rights are not.

The argument I hear from CCW/CHL holders is that by having the permit, they can carry legally. I say, our 2nd Amendment only clarifies an already unalienable God given right and certainly should not require one to submit to such obvious tyranny in order to keep or bear arms (legally). Secondly, if you are the law abiding citizen you claim to be, why should you ever expect that a LEO would have reason to search your person or vehicle, at anytime, or anywhere?

Another argument regarding the background checks is "what do you have to hide anyway?". Well, that's not the point really, is it? The point is that free men do not need to be presumed to be anything but innocent law abiding men by any authority or governing agent. Such background searches violates one's privacy, and assumes one as guilty to be proven innocent by the oppressive background check. And, if you have nothing to hide, then it should apply to every aspect of your life, the inside of your vehicle, the inside of your bedroom closet, your wife's underwear drawer, everything! Once you submit, where it stops is no longer in your hands.

Suggesting that your conformance with unConstitutional laws and regulations is your duty as a "law abiding citizen", you're only admitting that the tyranny has taken over your life and your country.

The more we allow this tyranny to progress, the closer to slavery we become. The Declaration of Independence was unanimously signed by the 13 states. Read it again, and then again. Our resolution lies inside its text.
 
The question I have, if the whole point of instant checks is to sort out the criminals from the law abiding, why can't they come up with a solution that will not affect the law abiding?

One way would be to implant a small micro chip in every convicted criminal. One where if you went into a gun shop it would set off an alarm at the door, simular to the anti-theft devices we now have. I for one would use a service like this for private sales. No paper work no nothing. Just meet the buyer at your local gun shop, if he sets off the alarm, no sale.

But I know most of you would agree, this is not about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. It is about taking the guns from law abiding citizens.



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
bookie...

We don't "need" our government to protect us from the bad guys...that is our own individual responsibility. We have to stop looking for government to play protector from the bad guys. That is exactly their scheme. They want Americans to relinquish their rights to them. They have (or are supposed to have) very limited functions, most of which are to protect and defend our rights. If Americans stood firmly in their expectations of their unalienable rights, most would be packin heat, thereby able to defend themselves, their family, and unknown strangers, should a bad guy decide to violate someone's rights. We don't need Big Brother or Uncle Sam, or a bunch of military looking peace officers to replace what we can do (and should be doing) ourselves.

You will see the government's scheme in all arenas of our lives, continually justifying how we the people NEED them for nearly everything. And this scheme is programmed into the American mindset through a propaganda machine called the media. What this does, since most Americans are basically innocent sheep, is give the central government more and more power over all of us. Exactly their goal.

Think about how great our lives would be without this monstrousity we call a federal government. Imagine a life without taxation, without bureacracy, without a telephone thick book of regulations on how we should wipe our own asses. We've allowed this to happen, and we can make it go away. But we have to unleash ourselves from the shackles, and that will take some guts, some courage, and alot of team work.

Let's stop acting like slaves and be free men.

[This message has been edited by Paul Revere (edited May 16, 2000).]
 
Paul Revere, I agree with you in theory but the reality of the matter is that if you carry a loaded firearm without a CWL in a state that requires one, you will be arrested, charged with a felony and service a few years in jail unless you have the unlimited financial resources to fight the matter all of way to the Supreme Court (assuming it can get that far and they are even willing to hear the case). The reality of the matter is that nobody else will be standing with you before the judge except for your defense attorney.

When convicted and sent to jail, you will lose your job and your family will have things a little bit tougher not having you around. In all likelihood, while you are sitting behind bars, what ever guns you own will be taken away from you and you will be barred from buying guns in the future because of your criminal record.

If you want to make a test case out of this, I wish you all the luck in the world for you are a better man than most. If we could get all the handgun owners in America to stand with you, then that would be a different story because our government isn't going to lock up 80 million people. However, out of those 80 million handgun owners, only 3.5 million are NRA members and even a smaller percentage of them are active members.
 
FUD, I agree it is a sad state of affairs, especially when so many citizens buy into allowing the Constitution to legislated right out from under them. It is illegal (unconstitutional) to amend the Constitution with legislation.

Your statement of standing alone with only a defense attorney in court is in complete disregard of a fair trial as protected by the 6th amendment.

AMENDMENT SIX
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

I am not saying you are incorrect as the way things stand, I am asking why? For instance you are a juror and a citizen is proven beyond any doubt to be in possession, or use. How would you vote, to convict or acquit?

In another post it was said we need to keep guns out of the hands of violent people. I fail to see how any rational person could buy into such. Who is to determine who is a violent person? Perhaps they mean someone duly convicted as in 6th above. If so the first question should be why is such a convicted violent person not in jail? If the first law would not keep them off the street then what would induce the thought that another law would stop other criminal activity by them? Same as with federal unconstitutional gun laws, violence of any description is already against the law hundreds of years ago and if no law has stopped it why would another law stop it?

A very simple fact of life, guns have been on earth for centuries and they will never go away. People doing harm is what is against the law and that is the law that should be enforced. Otherwise than doing harm Americans are free to do as they wish according to the Constitution and the Constitution is the first Law we best enforce.
 
Bookie,

I believe that your solution is discussed in the Bible. And even if it weren't, I would not participate. They may only start with those convicted of felonies, but how long do you think it would be before they would want everyone to have one?

Halffast

------------------
"I say that big talk is worth doodly-squat." Granny Hawkins from the Outlaw Josey Wales

[This message has been edited by Halffast (edited May 16, 2000).]
 
FUD...

Still, your argument has holes in it. You are assuming that if someone without a CCW/CHL is carrying a firearm that they WILL automatically be arrested, booked, tired, incarcerated, etc, etc. Please tell me how this person will be arrested if he/she is carrying concealed? Do LEOs have X-ray vision or something?

You see, irregardless of whether the person carrying has licensed away his/her right or simply reads the 2nd Amendment properly, there isn't an LEO in this land that can legally search a person, vehicle, home, or property without reasonable cause and/or a search warrant signed by a judge. You assume by simply carrying a weapon, one wears a neon sign on his/her forehead announcing his/her as carrying. This is where your argument fails.

If you go about your daily business without robbing a bank, doing a drive-by, tripping an elderly lady crossing the street, starting a fight in a movie theater, submitting to road rage, or any other infinitely stupid act, you stand a very good chance of never being searched by an LEO. Just be a quiet, everyday lad, and mind your own beezwax, keep your temper chilled, and you should never have to worry about what you suggest will automatically happen if you carry a firearm in accordance with our 2nd Amendment freedom.

Furthermore, the majority of states (check your own), even those with negative views on firearms, allow citizens to carry a weapon on their own property and in their place of business. At least here in Illinois (home of Kommandant Daley) that applies to all Illinoians.

However you decide to look at this subject, we're still talking about gun laws which are all totally unConstitutional. And I have yet to hear of any truly innocent person who followed the above suggested behavioral guidelines who has been arrested, booked, tried, and incarcerated for simply exercising his/her 2nd Amendment freedoms. If you know of one, please let me know. I will be happy to financially help defend them against this tyranny.

I doubt if you can name even one.
 
Paul Revere, for whatever this is worth ... about two decades ago my dad was robbed at gunpoint in our own backyard and I decided to buy a firearm. Before buying one, I wanted to do some reach into which gun was the best one to get as I knew absolutely NOTHING about firearms (I though a .38 was more powerful than a .357). I borrowed a book from the library on guns but since the book was several years old, I also decided to buy some current gun magazines as well. I had these in the back of my car when I was driving home from work (wearing a three piece suit & tie) when I was pulled over in a random stop -- they were pulling every third or fourth car and I was "lucky" enough to have been chosen. I was told that this was a court order random check point and they check my driver's license, car registration and insurance card. They also shined a flashlight in the back seat. Seeing the gun magazines, they commented "We got ourselves a gun runner here" (I'll never forget those exact words and the voice that uttered them). They pulled me out of the car and searched me. Finding nothing, they proceded to tear the inside of my car apart -- throwing everything out onto the wet sidewalk (it had been raining earlier) with papers getting wet & dirty and things being blown away. Not finding anything, they threw everything back inside the car and "asked" for my permission to search the trunk. They said that they couldn't search it without my permission but if I had nothing, then there was no reason why I wouldn't give them permission. I said that I had nothing to hide but after the mess that they made in search my car, I wasn't about to let them do the same thing to my trunk. They relpied that it would be "easier" on me if I would co-operate with them because they would just hold me (and my car) there until a warrant could be obtained and they were there for the night so they had no problem in waiting and they could hold me for 24-hours before having to let me go. I don't know how valid their statements were but I was not in a position to argue with them. I allowed them to search the trunk and after they made a mess of that, they "thanked" and told me to have a nice day.

During all of this I was told that if they find a loaded firearm, I would be looking a three years in jail and I subsequently looked it up and determined that they were correct on that point.

My point being that you can be an altar boy or a boy scout and luck can just be against you at any particular point in time. Why invite trouble when it can be avoided?

Yes, chances are that I will never be caught if I descretly carry a firearm but chances also are that I will never even need a firearm for self defense purposes thus elimating the need for carrying one in the first place.

I carry a firearm because there is the slight possibility that I might need it to defend myself or my family. Conversely, I have a CWL in the slight possibility that a slight bulge here or there might be spotted by a trained police officer who needs an arrest so that it can be noted in his records when review time comes around.

Do I like the current state of things? No. If it was practical, I would be living in Vermont where no license is needed to carry.

Again, I agree with you in theory but reality is a completely different matter and if I get thrown in jail for carrying without a license, one life will not make a difference with regard to our rights to keep and bare arms but it will have a big impact on the life of my family.

[This message has been edited by FUD (edited May 16, 2000).]
 
One correction FUD:

In every State I have been in, INCLUDING California, it is NOT a felony to have a concealed gun.

Even in Kalifonia it is only a misdemeanor.

In the State I live now, it is a misdemeanor and a $25 fine for carrying a concealed gun!
Unfortunately I learned this after I got my CCW.

On the other hand, I slightly disagree with people that put down the CCW license. Sure, it is treating a Right like a privelidge. But, in the mean time, I am within the law, and if they ever take away that "priviledge", I will carry anyway! So, it can't hurt to be within the law for now. Also, good people carrying CCW shows up in stats to prove that it works. If we all refused to sign up, then the anti's would show it as a failure.

[This message has been edited by CassandraComplex (edited May 16, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CassandraComplex:
... In every State I have been in, INCLUDING California, it is NOT a felony to have a concealed gun ...[/quote]Unless things have changed since I moved (which might very well be the case), in the state of New Jersey it was a felony to have a loaded firearm within your reach while in public. However, even a misdemeanor charge would exclude you from being issued any future Purchase Permits which are required for all handgun purchases.



[This message has been edited by FUD (edited May 16, 2000).]
 
Seems as though most everyone agrees it is OK to license a constitutional Right. Does anyone suppose after the first Right is licensed it will be easier to license the second Right? I can understand knuckling under because of fear, what will the family do without me. But, I believe whether family was the real reason or not it should be a high priority to work toward removing any unconstitutional law from the books. If we accept the first license then isn't there a good chance the family will be forced to accept the second license?

The Constitution is the Law the elected have to obey whether they or we agree with or like that law. If we or they believe there is a flaw in the Constitution then the legal method of repairing that flaw is by ratifying an Amendment. It is unconstitutional (illegal) to amend or otherwise change the Constitution, or its meaning, with legislation or Supreme Court decisions. Better wake up people, your and your posterity's Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are being licensed away. Fire politicians in elected office who are enacting unconstitutional legislation. Those elected enacting such legislation can only be members of the democrat or republican political parties. Don't vote for them again, nor anyone vying for elected office from those political parties. Vote third party come November and tell everyone you know to do the same.
 
FUD...

With all due respect, if you didn't have those "gun magazines" lying on the back seat, you'd have never provoked those thugs to look any further than their nazi-like noses. Granted, you had nothing to hide, but that is not the point.

I've said this on other posts and it deserves repeating here...if you present yourself as a target, you will become one. Give no reason for anyone (LEO/Feds/car thieves/or others) to ever want to look through your vehicle. Because "probable cause" can be stretched by nazi-cops to make a gun runner out of a gun magazine reader, as you found out first hand. This means your vehicle should from any angle look as though it belongs to the Pope. I mean nothing, not an NRA sticker, or a roach clip hanging from your rear view mirror, or a six pack you just bought lying on the back seat, or gun magazines lying in plain sight, or anything that would make you a target...NOTHING. You should never drink/do drugs and drive, speed, weave, turn right on red, etc. etc.

Moreover, besides the 2nd Amendment we also have a 4th Amendment (which is appropriate to this discussion). It says; "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Imagine now, upon that illegally conducted "random search", you whip out your pocket size copy of the U.S. Constitution to read the 4th Amendment to the nazi-cops who obviously need a refresher course in U.S. Constitutional Law. By the way, your vehicle doors are locked and your window is cracked just enough for conversation...hands on the wheel.

Let them go ballistic. You stay calm, and be a good citizen of their little police state mentality. If you've not made yourself a target, and you are simply at the wrong place at the wrong time...then use your head. Never give in to tyranny, no matter what shape or size it comes in.

Lastly, you want to talk about making yourself a target for tyranny. Those CCW/CHL permits you all so strongly support are a neon sign in federal databases. You've submitted to intrusive illegal fingerprinting and background checking, and as a result you've moved to the top of the top of every list known to federal gun grabbers. Please say it ain't so.

You are in a corner which you've allowed yourself to be put into. Only you can get yourself out of it.

BTW, the CATO Institute has pocket size U.S. Constitutions for $1.00 (1-800-767-1241). Buy a few of them, and don't let anyone ever violate your rights again. And, again...my offer stands about assisting any innocent person who has been subjected to this tyranny.

[This message has been edited by Paul Revere (edited May 17, 2000).]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top