Whats wrong with extended background checks?


PDA






Potatohead
April 20, 2013, 05:38 PM
Easy now..im a conservative guy..nra member..not a fan of much that the left has to offer..dont believe in global warming..dont want anyone messing w my magazine capacity...dont believe banning "assault" rifles would help anything..but educate me here, whats so bad about extended background checks IF it revealed a mental problem or anger issue or such? i am pretty sure that this still wouldnt weed out any of the Columbiners though, but educate me like you would if i were an anti gunner, on what is wrong with extended background checks.. is it that we are placing to much decision making on the govt about who can do what?..or the fact that big brother seldom knows his limits and keeps on wanting more? just help me out here, the wife was asking me about it and i really couldnt come up with much more than that

If you enjoyed reading about "Whats wrong with extended background checks?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ngnrd
April 20, 2013, 05:40 PM
Please define what you are calling extended background checks.

Chevelle SS
April 20, 2013, 05:40 PM
Because background checks could/will lead to registration, which leads to confiscations. Background checks aren't any good if they don't know who owns what.

OilyPablo
April 20, 2013, 05:46 PM
Main reason: We already have background checks. This last bill had a bunch of baggage.

gripper
April 20, 2013, 05:48 PM
I disapprove of background checks to exercise human and civil rights. Period.
If one is too " dangerous" to have full access to ones natural rights, then one should not be out here with us actual free people.
I don't care if decades of statutory and case law have to fall by the wayside ( where it belongs IMHO) and even less for the fate of administrative reg/ executive orders.
Screw any political legacy save that if freedom- and screw those who say otherwise. IRS all smoke and mirrors to distract us from the statist objective- total control over the individual by the collective as personified by the elitist scum who WANT to be in charge.
Rant over, flame away.

Fremmer
April 20, 2013, 05:51 PM
You bet, a new background scheme to register your guns. And then you know what happens? Guess what, they've got a list, time to turn them in.

And none of it would have prevented newtown or most of the murders in Chicago, which has the most stringent gun control laws in the Country.

But they sure do want that list, don't they?

MDW GUNS
April 20, 2013, 05:56 PM
...Because background checks could/will lead to registration,...

Every check with the NIC is saved.
While the ATF does not know directly what the person bought (Handgun, Rifle or Shotgun) they know that s/he did.
Once they get the 4473 they know even what.

Background checks are also only as good as what they are checking for.
The common criminal is unlikely to run into a school and does things like in CT.
Before we ask for more background checks, we should make the government include real info on metal health troubled people.
On the other side, only because someone had a bad moment in his life, does not mean s/he is doing such a thing.
The only way to stop a problem at the door or a school is a well trained and armed person who will protect his school.
This can be a veteran, retired and/or active LEO or military or simply a parent who qualified with a firearm and is IN THE SCHOOL TO PROTECT IT.

Potatohead
April 20, 2013, 05:58 PM
good points.. how do you really "extend" a background ck anyway ,now that i think about it? R they gonna talk to my kindergarten teachers? i can hear it now , "yea he used to eat more play-doh than anyone, but boy could he hopscotch"

Derek Zeanah
April 20, 2013, 06:00 PM
whats so bad about extended background checks IF it revealed a mental problem or anger issue or such?
This is really disorganized, so here are a few responses off the top of my head: There is simply no way to reliably identify a person as "safe." Sometimes people go through issues (trauma, loss, sudden onset of mental illness, brain tumors, etc) that are temporary. If you ID someone as someone that shouldn't be allowed to own a gun at (say) 14 years old, that doesn't mean that the same person, once those issues are ironed out, isn't fit to be able to defend his family when he's 40. But no medical professional is going to step up and say 'Bob Smith is no longer a threat,' because there's no way to tell. This is especially if you might lose your medical license for being wrong. Remember the airport threat color ratings in airports? They never lowered them, because it would be somebody's ass if there was a terrorist incident after the threat level was lowered. Same thing.
Right now people who need help can get help, and they're protected from having their medical information shared. If you lost you wife, let's say, and were having some issues dealing with it, would you go to get counseling if as as result the state would probably seize your firearms and prohibit you from owning them in the future? NYPD may be doing something comparable right now: if you're on an anti-depressant or have been in the past, you're no longer fit to own a firearm.
Rape often causes PTSD. Most of the proposals we've seen for the "enhanced" background checks use PTSD as a flag. If you were raped and wanted to be able to defend yourself, would you seek medical treatment if you knew it meant you'd likely be disarmed? Is this something we want to prohibit?
How about combat vets who come back and have issues. How many will seek help if it means a lifelong prohibition on 2nd amendment rights?
To make this happen all doctors will need to make the medical records of all their patients available to the department of justice. Do we want this?Then, at the end of the day we come across this fact: criminals get around laws. Remember that 26 year old that decided to bomb the marathon this week? Remember those 200 rounds he supposedly fired in a rolling gunfight?

Well, he was prohibited from firearm possession because of domestic violence issues in the past. Didn't do much good, did it?

The other issue we're looking at is this: right now transfers among individuals that live in the same state are mostly legal. The "universal background check" proposals would do things like make your roommate (and you) a felon if you leave town for a week and leave a firearm behind. Seriously -- there was some bad juju there.

22-rimfire
April 20, 2013, 06:01 PM
I didn't care much for the requirement for reporting a gun stolen within 24 hrs... I believe to the FBI and punishable. Honestly, if someone I know (aka has access to my home) took a couple guns from me, it might be 6 months before I would notice anything missing and might not even then. That requirement was a "harmless baby step" toward registration and taking the ... I lost it defense away from the individual.

If they want my support, they need to carefully craft legislation that increases the mental health aspect of the present NICs check. But I frankly don't think they know how to do that. So, lets just penialize everyone and let's add a sin tax on guns and ammunition to boot.

joeschmoe
April 20, 2013, 06:05 PM
We never gave Congress the power to regulate private individuals. The same document that empowers our government also limits them.

OilyPablo
April 20, 2013, 06:14 PM
We never gave Congress the power to regulate private individuals. The same document that empowers our government also limits them.

Quick, tell them that.

ingloriousbastage
April 20, 2013, 06:21 PM
I didn't care much for the requirement for reporting a gun stolen within 24 hrs
what's interesting is that you're already supposed to report a firearm stolen. But now they want to make the poor sucker that got his gun stolen, a felon if he doesn't report it. A nice slap in the face for having your gun stolen.

RiverPerson
April 20, 2013, 06:27 PM
When a UBC doesn't stop mass shootings, they'll want something else. When that doesn't work, something else, and so on.

Look at where our gun rights are now, compared to what they were in the past before the GCA and NFA.

The founding fathers settled the RKBA issue pretty well, if you ask me. These idiots don't seem to get that.

jj1962hemi
April 20, 2013, 06:31 PM
Most of my liberal anti-gun friends cannot even fathom the concept that an armed citizenry could serve as a bulwark against totalitarianism. They also think it's not possible in the USA. Those two notions make it impossible to reach common ground with them. The most common approach from many of my friends lately, which is sensible if you have such faith in the government/human nature is: "You register your car, and are held responsible for what happens with it. Why not each gun? That would keep people from selling them or not reporting thefts." When I respond that I can never buy that encroachment, that there are probably hundreds or thousands of Polish relatives I'll never be able to meet because of a fascist dictator's control......They tell me to freshen the tinfoil in my Browning cap and stay out of politics. The divide is very clear and the education about issues like these is very one-sided.

saltydog452
April 20, 2013, 06:32 PM
Mostly, efforts to circumvent the Bill Of Rights, ( that issue was straingtened out about 1950 or so) .the governemental mandate, approval, and being blessed by the current powers in charge.

salty.

ngnrd
April 20, 2013, 06:39 PM
Quick, tell them that.
The Supreme Court understands it. In writing the majority decision for the Heller decision, Justice Scalia specifically noted that the government regulation of 'commercial sale of arms' was presumptively lawful. The inclusion of the word 'commercial' in that statement clearly indicates that the Court recognizes the difference between commercial and non-commercial transactions. The corollary of which is, government regulation of non-commercial (private) sales does not carry that same presumption of being lawful. i.e., the feds have no business regulating private transactions of lawfully possessed goods.

EDIT: had previously omitted an important phrase, which I added and underlined above

kwguy
April 20, 2013, 06:40 PM
We already have background checks. They need to fix what's broken before they come up with other nonsense that doesn't even fix anything. Just by taking what's on the news, listen to the goofiness of this 'logic':

"The senate voted down 'expanded background checks' this week. Those 'crazy' NRA folks don't even want reasonable check that '90%' of the American public believe in. Those checks would have closed the 'gunshow loophole' and kept weapons out of the hands of convicted felons and the mentally ill. It also would have exempted private sales, blah blah..."

This is the drivel the media has been spinning all week. Only problem is this: The current laws already do this, so what the heck are they doing? Wasting time on onerous, nonsense legislation. Fix what we already have. Prosecute those that need prosecuting. And don't pass laws that we already have, because you know what? It will be something else that passes, but we won't know what it is until AFTER we passed it.

SabbathWolf
April 20, 2013, 06:40 PM
What Derek said....

mljdeckard
April 20, 2013, 06:45 PM
Fundamentally at issue is the idea of having to check with the government before we are allowed to exercise a right. This would render it a privilege.

Secondly, no matter what law is passedNOW to protect us from the information being compiled as a registry, there is absolutely nothing preventing a future congress from chasnging the law. Eventually, one way or another, it will lead to registration.

Thirdly, it is entirely ineffective. Canada just abandoned their registration system due to massive non-compliance. New York just de-funder theirs for lack of cost-effectiveness. It's really simple. If a criminal knows a gun can be traced back to him, HE WILL USE A DIFFERENT GUN.

OilyPablo
April 20, 2013, 06:46 PM
I forgot: They pretty much don't work.

browningguy
April 20, 2013, 06:49 PM
It's not really background checks that bother me as the way they will want to do it. What they don't tell you is how they will implement it, that's because it will require you to go through a licensed dealer for all firearm transactions.

If they made it simple so that as a gun seller I could call in to NICS for an instant check I wouldn't mind using it, I don't want to sell to a convict if I can help it.

And no, I don't believe in the touchy feely if they have done their time everything should be ok. Recidivism rates are horrible for all types of criminals.

Potatohead
April 20, 2013, 08:55 PM
i feel much more edumacated...good point Derek, and everyone else to..

SpentCasing
April 20, 2013, 09:06 PM
Heres my problem:

Say, I get pulled over with a trunk full of rifles. The cop runs the serials to make sure they arent stolen. Okay, fine. Now he needs to make sure I didnt use the "gun show loophole" to purchase them according to the new law.

How would he/she check that they were all purchased through a FFL? How would this law be enforced?

There's only one way. REGISTRATION.

Im against UBCs because the only way for it to possibly be enforced has to be through registration. Plain and simple.

Hope this helps to understand where we are coming from. RKBA is a birthright NOT a privilege.

Potatohead
April 20, 2013, 09:07 PM
I'm new to being up close and personal to all this gun business and you all have shed a lot of light.. and all of these comments are very well made by very very rational sounding folks who make a lot of sense..its to bad that makes people unelectable for some reason

rcmodel
April 20, 2013, 09:10 PM
Whats wrong with extended background checks?What's wrong is, they will do no good, until medical & school confidentially laws are changes to insure the Wacko's and Sick Puppies that are committing mass murders are included in the background check information database.

They aren't now.
And there has been no meaningful legislation introduced to make it so.

rc

Texan Scott
April 20, 2013, 09:31 PM
TS: Why not? BECAUSE I SAID NO, that's why not.
Senator: What do you mean, "No"? Who do you think you are?
TS: Did I stutter? I am a CITIZEN, and a VOTER. I am not your subject, I am your EMPLOYER. Who do you think YOU are?!?
Senator: But, It's my responsibility to answer to the will of the people!
TS: WRONG, SENATOR, WRONG! Your responsibility is to uphold the Constitution of the United States. The oath you swore says nothing about the "will of the people". If the "will of the people" violates the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of the people, your oath requires you to tell the "people" you lack the authority to do that.

We don't need the government's permission, Senator. It needs ours.

Cruz, Cornyn: "We get it!"

Schumer, Lautenberg: Mental health... children... criminals...

Feinstein: scary black guns... full-auto missile launchers... shoulder thingies! Blurble spit Gerk *twitch* *twitch* squeeeeee....

THIS PROGRAM HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOU IN PART BY THE NUMBER 2, AND THE LETTERS N, R, AND A.

joeschmoe
April 20, 2013, 10:15 PM
Quick, tell them that.
We already did. 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

jdh
April 20, 2013, 10:22 PM
Guilty until proven innocent is NOT one of the concepts upon which our legal system was based.

OilyPablo
April 20, 2013, 10:25 PM
Guilty until proven innocent is NOT one of the concepts upon which our legal system was based.

That has been my major beef with the last four months.

JShirley
April 20, 2013, 10:26 PM
"You register your car, and are held responsible for what happens with it. Why not each gun? That would keep people from selling them or not reporting thefts."

Ah. But literally anyone can buy a car without a background check. You register a vehicle to drive it on a public road- similar to the concealed carry laws in the majority of states, that require a concealed carry license to carry outside your home or business. The proposed background check requirements might have made it impossible to sell to anyone who was not a family member without a background check, regardless of your personal knowledge of that individual. As others have pointed out, depending on the verbiage, it might have been ruled a felony just to leave your firearms in your own domicile longer than x time, if you have a roommate.

John

12131
April 20, 2013, 10:32 PM
when a ubc doesn't stop mass shootings, they'll want something else. When that doesn't work, something else, and so on.

Look at where our gun rights are now, compared to what they were in the past before the gca and nfa.

The founding fathers settled the rkba issue pretty well, if you ask me. These idiots don't seem to get that.
Bingo! That is the gun grabbers' game plan. And the ultimate result is total ban of private firearm ownership, if we keep giving an inch here an inch there.
This concept should be tattooed in every gun owner's brain.

Old Fuff
April 21, 2013, 12:51 AM
Ive been thinking that maybe we should pass a law which would require that when a private citizen bought some... ah... well, controlled substance from another similar person they should both go through a background check. :uhoh:

Now some folks will call me pretty dumb, but last week John McCain, our senator from Arizona said that "while he wouldn't vote for an AWB, he would support the UBC bill, because while it hadn't prevented any shootings in the past, and wouldn't likely prevent any in the future, it sounded reasonable and probably wasn't unconstitutional.

That kind of reasoning makes my suggestion sound pretty good. :D

avs11054
April 21, 2013, 01:17 AM
I've got thwo reasons of why I disapprove of UBCs (none of which is the registration fear, although it's not that I doubt that would happen). First, is the slippery slope. All these anti-gunners say that they want UBCs to prevent mass shootings, yet most of the recent mass shootings would not have been prevented by UBCs. So when UBCs didn't work, the anti-gunners would want something else (not that they don't want something else already, but UBCs are a starting point).

Next, requiring UBCs would require every gun transaction to go through an FFL. The cheapest I have been able to find for an FFL transfer is $35. I've heard of it being as much as $100 in some places. Can you imagine how much those prices would go up if everybody who sold a gun was going to the local FFL to do a transfer? On top of that, the ATF would certainly know that they could now profit from it as well since it was mandatory, so throw on their fee on top of that. I would bet that when it is all said and done, we would be talking at least $100 in fees just to sell a gun. Now for the people who are spending $1000-1500 for a gun, that $100 isn't going to mean much. But what about the people who are only able to spen $200-300 on a gun? You're increasing the price of the gun (and the ability to exercise a constitutional right) by 25-33%. That could possibly price that person out of the market, and that's wrong if you ask me.

My thoughts are that they should pass a bill that allows any citizen selling a gun to do a NICS check if that citizen chooses to do so. That way the "90%" of people who want that can have their UBCs. The other 10% wouldn't be bothered with it.

Shadow 7D
April 21, 2013, 02:10 AM
At some level it would include a 'professional' making a decision, who??
a psychologist who couldn't get a better job, some desk jockey with a BS in psychology who found out his degree isn't worth the paper it's printed on???

my issue is WHO and HOW

BTW, have you read the justice white paper, and bother to google where criminals get their guns (less than 5% are private sale/gunshow, and a number of those were PRIOR to them being a prohibited person)

Justice says UBC is pointless without registration, as Cruz??? pointed out, that can be changed ANYTIME, no matter what wording is in this law, another one can simply take it out
Most criminals get their guns from OTHER criminals, OR from their GF/Wife/Mother/Friend STRAWBUYing for them, a FELONY (10 year/100K) but does Obama and Holder go after them???

BigBore44
April 21, 2013, 05:40 AM
First, What the 2A says "Shall not be infringed".
Then, WHAT DEREK ZEANAH SAID in post #9.
Then, WHAT TEXAS SCOTT SAID in post #27

thump_rrr
April 21, 2013, 06:09 AM
I don't understand why people equate a background check with registration?

In Canada we have a PAL (Posession and Acquisition License)
I walk into any gun store and show my license and walk out with any Non Restricted gun.
There is no phone call, no taking of information on what I purchased etc.
I can also purchase from any private individual either face to face or over the Internet the same way. We can even send firearms directly to another individual through the federal mail system.

I understand that you would view licensing as an erosion of your 2A rights.
I also understand that tomorrow I could become a prohibited person who would still be in posession of a PAL.

They could call it a speed pass or a pre-check or something where it is not a license but a pre approval of a background check.

What I'm getting at is that the simplicity of our system in this regard sure beats FFL transfers and a background check every time you go to purchase a firearm.

I can tell you that I feel more free walking up to a store, a gun show, or an individual, showing my PAL, exchanging money and walking away with my firearm than filling out a form which actually has on it what you have purchased and claim that I have my "Freedom".

JShirley
April 21, 2013, 09:47 AM
Totally different situation. In what we're discussing, a check would be run every single time.

Fremmer
April 21, 2013, 09:53 AM
You have a license to do something in Canada.
Here, we have constitutional rights that don't require a license to exercise.
We don't need new licenses or checks or schemes.
No compromise! NO.

dprice3844444
April 21, 2013, 09:56 AM
give politicians an inch,they will take 10 miles

thump_rrr
April 21, 2013, 10:00 AM
You have a license to do something in Canada.
Here, we have constitutional rights that don't require a license to exercise.
We don't need new licenses or checks or schemes.
No compromise! NO.
Yet I can walk into a gun store and walk out with a brand new firearm without a paper record but you can't.
Chalk one up for your rights.

Potatohead
April 21, 2013, 10:09 AM
Can you imagine how much those prices would go up if everybody who sold a gun was going to the local FFL to do a transfer?

good point..

vito
April 21, 2013, 10:33 AM
Part of my opposition is based upon the open admission by the most adamant supporters of UBC that what they really wish they could achieve is total confiscation. Why would I want to cooperate with people who clearly are trying to move the starting point of each argument closer and closer to where no discussion will be needed, because we will have lost the right to own firearms. And just because something sounds "reasonable" to some people does not mean it should become the law, and thus restricting all of us. DUI drivers have killed many innocent people, so maybe it is reasonable to require a background check on every attempted purchase of alcohol, to make sure we don't accidentally sell booze to someone we now is already a problem since that have a DUI conviction. Do we really want to give the government more and more authority in how we live our personal lives? When the left will not even stand for verification of voters to make sure they are who they say they are, but want to have more and more invasive background checks for gun owners, you know that there is really a political agenda working here that is not in your or my interests.

Fremmer
April 21, 2013, 11:09 AM
Oh, you can, for now. Until they revoke the license, and then you'll buy nothing until your government decides otherwise.
The criminal will never worry about a license. Or a background check. Only the law abiding citizen will be affected.

ol' scratch
April 21, 2013, 11:52 AM
It was feel good legislation that would have done nothing to prevent crime. I also didn't like the tactics used. The lied about 90 percent of people supporting it to gain support The Obama administration parroted the 40 percent stat; a stat that was rounded up, outdated and later found to be inaccurate. Notice that they didnít say that 40 percent of firearms sold at gun shows show up at crime scenes because they canít. It just isnít true.

They kept on say things like, "If it could save just one life" when they knew darn well that just enforcing existing laws would save more than one life. They already have a background check system they don't use correctly. They give known straw purchasers probation when they should be brought up on accessory charges and sent to prison.

This was a political litmus test to see if they could jam through even worse legislation later on. Frankly, I am tired of government encroachment on my life and the tactics they use to try and destroy my freedom. This isnít over yet and I know that, but it is nice to take a breath and regroup.

vito
April 21, 2013, 11:55 AM
We should all remember what happened in the UK, and in Australia. Terrible crimes led to severe gun restrictions, full registration, and eventual confiscation. I know someone in Australia who dutifully registered his guns, being assured that none of his guns were on the prohibited list. Some time later ALL of his guns were added to the list and he was forced to surrender them. People in the UK said confiscation could never happen in the birthplace of European freedom, but not only are guns banned, essentially the right of self defense has been taken away. While gun crime is lower than it is in the USA, violent crime is much, much higher. What most alarms me is that despite my career in the military, lifetime support of the NRA, a family atmosphere that stressed self reliance and individual freedom, both of my sons have grown up to be anti gun. Both were highly offended when I bought them NRA memberships as gifts. At least my two sons-in-law don't feel that way, nor are my daughters so dogmatically opposed to firearms for home defense. But I doubt that any of my grown children, or their spouses, truly understand what the dynamic of gun control is really about and likely think that the recent Senate proposal was totally reasonable. Hopefully I will get to have some influence on my 10 grandchildren so that they don't grow up disenfranchised and part of the sheeple.

Highland Ranger
April 21, 2013, 12:32 PM
Every check with the NIC is saved.
While the ATF does not know directly what the person bought (Handgun, Rifle or Shotgun) they know that s/he did.
Once they get the 4473 they know even what.

NICS: I thought they were required by law to delete the data after 90 days?
4473: Only stay at the store for 7 years?

Bottom line: I believe the statement "there is gun registration today" is FALSE.

Derek Zeanah
April 21, 2013, 12:36 PM
4473: Only stay at the store for 7 years?
I believe it's 20, and if the store closes then they all go to the ATF.

OilyPablo
April 21, 2013, 12:39 PM
Bottom line: I believe the statement "there is gun registration today" is FALSE.

Depends on the state. Our state was found to have and keep a registry from state forms and LE can access this registry - from squad cars!

flatlander937
April 21, 2013, 01:07 PM
Proof that extending the checks has already come out of Joe Biden's mouth:

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/joe-biden-we-dont-have-time-to-prosecute-everybody-who-lies-on-background-checks/

And on top of that, from this study done using 2010 numbers... there were ~76,000 people who were denied on a background check. Only 62 of those cases were referred for prosecution.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf



Again without registration it would never be doable.



German history is a good example of what happened...

(In a nutshell)
-1919 the Weimar Republic passed sweeping gun control laws and everything was turned into the government.
-1928 German parliament passed the Law on Firearms and Ammunition which relaxed the laws but there was required registration(not sure if just owners or firearms as well). It's argued that this was passed because of Hitler's attempted/failed coup in Munich to gain power in 1923.
-1938 Nazi Gun Control laws enacted, through the registration process they were able to disarm the Jewish and all those who opposed the Nazi party.

Here is the very good paper on the issue:

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/67-harcourt.pdf


You can see that while the registration was enacted under the previous governing body... it paved the road for the Nazis to pick and choose who can be armed and allowed them to take control over the Jews.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

robmints
April 21, 2013, 07:09 PM
In principle, our guaranteed right should make us more free. But in practice, we would be more free with a gun purchasing system like yours.

We cannot ship an 01 firearm to someone else. That is not free.
We cannot own nfa items without months of needless delay and huge tax. Free?
Many places we cannot go into a store and buy a handgun without a waiting period and approval. The wait is about 2 months here. Free? What rights are you guys talking about?
We need an "instant" check that is taking weeks to complete to buy a long gun. No 2A here.
I cannot buy a gun from out of state or do a local transfer because the ffls safes are full from delay and cannot hold any more.
Many places we cannot CC or OC.

All this guaranteed right and freedom stuff is too complicated to really work.

nulook45
April 21, 2013, 11:18 PM
I was busted in 2005 on a domestic violence charge that was dropped and i was also charged with disorderly conduct a Minor misdemeanor and i get delayed and denied all the frigging time and no one has come knocking on the door yet . Keep in mind the DV charge was dropped i was never convicted of a crime of dv and yet i still have to go thru the bullsh of getting denied everytime i want to buy a gun and have to apeal and that can take up to 6 months by then if your lucky the next tranfer is just delayed for a couple of days before being approved . this is why background checks dont work because the info on the checks is never updated and is always wrong .... they would have never stoped Adam Lanza or any other criminal . and they stop a good bunch of law abiding citizens from being able to own a firearm

The-Reaver
April 22, 2013, 11:01 AM
http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=plcp&v=4WlwVAZj_dY


Enjoy

Schutzen
April 22, 2013, 11:21 AM
1) The law as written did not cover only UBC's. If a FFL Dealer accepted a forged identification card as proof for a gun sale he would commit a felony. I may or may not be able to detect a forged ID card.

2) It failed to address the Hippa laws that are used to prevent notification to the police of medical disqualifiers for the purchase/ownership of firearms.
ie. Loony tunes should not have firearms.

3) The current laws are not enforced. 76,000 attempts to purchase by "prohibited persons" and only 62 procecutions because "we don't go after guppies".

4) To our Canadian friend, yes it is true you do not register firearms; but why do you need to? You have all the firearms owners registered. Firearms a inanimate objects. All RCMP has do do is round up all the registered owners.

5) If you require all firearms transfers to be handled by a FFL dealer and then reduce the number of FFL dealers you have effectively stopped legal firearms trades. "We would not cut the number of FFL's!" Bill Clinton did, from over 100,000 in 1996 to roughly 55,000 today.

6) Always look beyond what is said. The liberals ususally say one thing and write a law to do another.

If you enjoyed reading about "Whats wrong with extended background checks?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!