Are background checks good or bad?
- Thread starter JKimball
- Start date
- Status
Dr. Peter Venkman
Member
I'll respond to the larger posts when I can. In the meantime:
You always love setting up big scenarios thinking that all I have been recommending is just adding an "instant background check" with the status quo.
I'll throw the same line of logic back at you:
"What would happen when Hillary and her brood decide it's time to shutdown the 2nd Amendment by banning everything that is "non-sporting", conveniently changing it's meaning forever?"
When you think about it Olson, there is nothing stopping the government from passing any kind of legislation you do not like or anything that goes against the Constitution (remember, it can be changed by a Supreme Court Decision or a vote in congress). When that time comes that is why the 2nd Amendment was there and you would know very well what to do.
You always love setting up big scenarios thinking that all I have been recommending is just adding an "instant background check" with the status quo.
I'll throw the same line of logic back at you:
"What would happen when Hillary and her brood decide it's time to shutdown the 2nd Amendment by banning everything that is "non-sporting", conveniently changing it's meaning forever?"
When you think about it Olson, there is nothing stopping the government from passing any kind of legislation you do not like or anything that goes against the Constitution (remember, it can be changed by a Supreme Court Decision or a vote in congress). When that time comes that is why the 2nd Amendment was there and you would know very well what to do.
Dr. Peter Venkman said:
kind of like the 1986 "machine gun" ban? that atrocity was almost immediately overturned, right...?
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=294609&highlight=nfa+registry
im not talking about something that would happen tomorrow in one big swoop (i can see how you would think that as i used hillary as an example), but i have no doubt that if we allow the antis to keep taking little bit by little bit, that will be the end result. and having it already in place makes it that much easier.
Dr. Peter Venkman
Member
There is no difference between having a background check system being defunded by a vote and having a gun law passed with a vote.
StuckInMA
Member
I originally voted in favor of background checks. My thinking was that the little inconvenience I deal with is worth making the anti's happy so it isn't a big deal. And maybe it will even deter a few BG's.
Then I went back and read about PA updating their system which is halting gun sales for 5 days. That made me realize that it's not just an inconvenience. It's a noose around our necks that can be tightened at any time. Whether or not they tighten the noose isn't the issue. The fact that they have the ability to is.
This system of background checks gives the government complete control over our ability to (legally) purchase firearms. I see that as an infringement.
The government using this power to control our purchasing habits may seem ridiculous right now, but how many laws have been put into place already that at one time were thought to be "ridiculous."
I'll start with a few.
- I never thought my FID card would expire. Especially since it said it would never expire right on the card. It did.
- I never thought it would cost me almost $200 to acquire my LTC. It does.
- I never thought my little squirrel gun (.22) would be put on a "large capacity" firearm list. It was.
- I never thought the capacity of my magazines would be reduced to some randomly suggested number. They were.
- I never thought I'd see the day where you needed a license to purchase and posses OC spray. You do.
- I never thought I'd have to worry about whether or not my local police chief was pro gun to exercise my RKBA. I do.
- I never thought the state would put a requirement on how I can store my firearms at home. They have.
I don't go back as far as many of you so anyone care to add to the list? Especially those of from CA.
Then I went back and read about PA updating their system which is halting gun sales for 5 days. That made me realize that it's not just an inconvenience. It's a noose around our necks that can be tightened at any time. Whether or not they tighten the noose isn't the issue. The fact that they have the ability to is.
This system of background checks gives the government complete control over our ability to (legally) purchase firearms. I see that as an infringement.
The government using this power to control our purchasing habits may seem ridiculous right now, but how many laws have been put into place already that at one time were thought to be "ridiculous."
I'll start with a few.
- I never thought my FID card would expire. Especially since it said it would never expire right on the card. It did.
- I never thought it would cost me almost $200 to acquire my LTC. It does.
- I never thought my little squirrel gun (.22) would be put on a "large capacity" firearm list. It was.
- I never thought the capacity of my magazines would be reduced to some randomly suggested number. They were.
- I never thought I'd see the day where you needed a license to purchase and posses OC spray. You do.
- I never thought I'd have to worry about whether or not my local police chief was pro gun to exercise my RKBA. I do.
- I never thought the state would put a requirement on how I can store my firearms at home. They have.
I don't go back as far as many of you so anyone care to add to the list? Especially those of from CA.
Blackfork
Member
Government power
Any power the government gets, eventually, they are going to misuse. I'm against background checks. Citizens rights to arms is too important to infringe for any reason.
Any power the government gets, eventually, they are going to misuse. I'm against background checks. Citizens rights to arms is too important to infringe for any reason.
StuckInMA
Member
I can see it now.
"Legal firearm purchases halted for 6 months so the effect on straw purchases can be investigated."
They don't want to hurt us good guys. They just want to go after the BG's who are using straw purchases to put guns into the system. Halting legal sales to see if straw sales are reduced sounds perfectly reasonable doesn't it? And shutting down the system for six months isn't changing the law. It's just for investigative purposes.
wjustinen
Member
I never thought I would see an American
firearms owner accepting any infringement on the "right to keep and bear arms" as being legitimate, but it happens all the time.
If it restricts, or has the potential to restrict, anyone from keeping or bearing arms it is an infringement. The fact that you or I don't think that a given person, or class of persons, should be armed has nothing to do with whether the restriction is legit. The government is constrained from "infringe"ment.
firearms owner accepting any infringement on the "right to keep and bear arms" as being legitimate, but it happens all the time.
If it restricts, or has the potential to restrict, anyone from keeping or bearing arms it is an infringement. The fact that you or I don't think that a given person, or class of persons, should be armed has nothing to do with whether the restriction is legit. The government is constrained from "infringe"ment.
Dr. Peter Venkman
Member
If the Antis are going to ban guns they are going to ban guns, regardless of any laws that are currently on the books.
ServiceSoon
Member
Voted! I can see it so clearly now...Store Clerk, "I'm sorry Mr. Pimp Murderer Thug, the NICS system has denied you the right to buy this gun." Mr. Pimp Murderer Thug, "Ok, well it was worth a try. I guess I will just carry a toy gun to shoot at my enemies."
If you think the NICS system stops any criminal from acquiring a gun, you got another thing coming. Besides, Supreme Court judge Samuel Alito said the Federal machine gun laws are unconstitutional. One would think the same logic could be applied to all federal laws involving firearms.
Source: U.S. v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 1996)
If you think the NICS system stops any criminal from acquiring a gun, you got another thing coming. Besides, Supreme Court judge Samuel Alito said the Federal machine gun laws are unconstitutional. One would think the same logic could be applied to all federal laws involving firearms.
Source: U.S. v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 1996)
To those who voted yes. Have you ever had to go through the appeal process for a wrongful denial? If you have then you would know the .gov can stop you from purchasing firearms for pretty much any reason they see fit. If someone else (not eligible to purchase firearms) has a similar name, height (plus or minus a few inches), weight plus or minus a few pounds), or anything else that is similar, you can be denied. What is to stop the .gov from abusing this system? Once you get denied, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU to prove that you are who you say you are (not who they think you MIGHT be). This process does not simply consist of “hey, you need to double check” it all must be done through the mail and takes several weeks (if it is simply an accidental denial). Multiply the PITA factor by a 100 to try and appeal a “correct denial” (a parking ticket warrant can be sufficient to receive a “correct denial”). There is no telling what violations will be added to the already extensive “denial list”. Maybe all of those people who support BG checks will be singing a different tune when being late on a cell phone payment is grounds for a denial.
I agree, the filling out of the paperwork is not that much of an inconvenience. I oppose BG checks because of the reasons mentioned in previous posts.
I don’t see why convicted felons should not be allowed to buy firearms when they are allowed to drive. Cars kill more people than guns. I am willing to bet that the majority of gun crimes also involve cars. A criminal had to drive to the crime scene or jump in a get away car. I would propose regulating cars, gas, etc would have more of an effect on crime than regulating firearms.
I agree with the “us” vs. “them” concept. How to expect people to get back on their feet if they are constantly carrying a ball and chain? Job apps should not be allowed to ask about criminal history or be able to check. In an ideal world there would be no prisons. If a crime is violent enough, you are put to death. If it is not, you are fined then forced to pick up trash.
I am surprised at those who support background checks. I think it makes about as much sense as someone being pro 2A and voting Democrat.
RPCVYemen (post 63): How can you say you are ok with 99%? You obviously have never been in that 1%. Although I question if the system is even 99% accurate (including delays or false denials).
dstorm1911 (post 71): That is an awful story and exactly why I oppose background checks.
As far as showing a drivers license or other forms of ID when going to the bank, we have the patriot act (THE GOVERNMENT) to thank for that. Despite being private businesses, they are still at the mercy of federal laws. If you have tried to go to a bank and withdraw a few thousand dollars (for a car or anything else) you will realize the situation we are in. The .gov hates cash (and people with guns). Look at all of the laws prohibiting the possession of cash and guns. You can’t even pay for a car or house with cash anymore. Look at what we have given up to fight the “ware on drugs”, the “war on terror”, and the war on “crime”?
Those who think the NICS system is not a method of gun control. Take a look at your Utah CCW application. The NICS (FBI) check just jumped in price and it was passed on to the applicant. What will the next price hike be? Maybe a NICS check can only be performed on the third Tuesday of every month……. (like CCW interviews in CA). We have already seen a decrease in the number of “kitchen table” FFLs, what makes you think there wont be a similar crack down on the number of FFLs allowed to call in a NICS check? Lets say you have to run a NICS check before a private sell, what do you think shops will start charging for this service (since they know you don’t have any other option)?
I agree, the filling out of the paperwork is not that much of an inconvenience. I oppose BG checks because of the reasons mentioned in previous posts.
I don’t see why convicted felons should not be allowed to buy firearms when they are allowed to drive. Cars kill more people than guns. I am willing to bet that the majority of gun crimes also involve cars. A criminal had to drive to the crime scene or jump in a get away car. I would propose regulating cars, gas, etc would have more of an effect on crime than regulating firearms.
I agree with the “us” vs. “them” concept. How to expect people to get back on their feet if they are constantly carrying a ball and chain? Job apps should not be allowed to ask about criminal history or be able to check. In an ideal world there would be no prisons. If a crime is violent enough, you are put to death. If it is not, you are fined then forced to pick up trash.
I am surprised at those who support background checks. I think it makes about as much sense as someone being pro 2A and voting Democrat.
RPCVYemen (post 63): How can you say you are ok with 99%? You obviously have never been in that 1%. Although I question if the system is even 99% accurate (including delays or false denials).
dstorm1911 (post 71): That is an awful story and exactly why I oppose background checks.
As far as showing a drivers license or other forms of ID when going to the bank, we have the patriot act (THE GOVERNMENT) to thank for that. Despite being private businesses, they are still at the mercy of federal laws. If you have tried to go to a bank and withdraw a few thousand dollars (for a car or anything else) you will realize the situation we are in. The .gov hates cash (and people with guns). Look at all of the laws prohibiting the possession of cash and guns. You can’t even pay for a car or house with cash anymore. Look at what we have given up to fight the “ware on drugs”, the “war on terror”, and the war on “crime”?
Those who think the NICS system is not a method of gun control. Take a look at your Utah CCW application. The NICS (FBI) check just jumped in price and it was passed on to the applicant. What will the next price hike be? Maybe a NICS check can only be performed on the third Tuesday of every month……. (like CCW interviews in CA). We have already seen a decrease in the number of “kitchen table” FFLs, what makes you think there wont be a similar crack down on the number of FFLs allowed to call in a NICS check? Lets say you have to run a NICS check before a private sell, what do you think shops will start charging for this service (since they know you don’t have any other option)?
Last edited:
Dr. Peter Venkman
Member
The constant 'what-if' I keep reading here is that the government is going to start abusing it's power if a background check is in place. The thing not being mentioned is that if the government came to be that way there would never just be a "background check".
It's assuming that somehow all of the gun laws get rescinded (as far as allowing legal citizens to own, carry, et cetera) save for a background check, and all of a sudden the government will hamper down on ownership by shutting down NICS or raising fees. Such a government would never have a 'just a background check' or remove all of the gun laws in the first place.
Convicted felons (at the moment!) out on parole should not be able to own a firearm. Repaying their debt to society and getting out is another story. When you are out on parole, you are still part of the correctional system and your debt has not been repayed. As far as cars killing more people than guns, that's somewhat of a decent argument. It would be better with much more robust statistics, as far as how many were used in the commission of a crime (D.U.I), accidents with x circumstances, etc. Denying someone the ability to drive a car makes it that much more difficult to move on with their lives if they are out of jail or prison, but I don't this taking place in removing their right to have legal access to a firearm until they are completely out of the system.
Private Instutions can do what they want to a certain extent, James. What I have been trying to say is that thanks to that, no one is truly "free" in the sense they want the gun laws to be.
It's assuming that somehow all of the gun laws get rescinded (as far as allowing legal citizens to own, carry, et cetera) save for a background check, and all of a sudden the government will hamper down on ownership by shutting down NICS or raising fees. Such a government would never have a 'just a background check' or remove all of the gun laws in the first place.
Convicted felons (at the moment!) out on parole should not be able to own a firearm. Repaying their debt to society and getting out is another story. When you are out on parole, you are still part of the correctional system and your debt has not been repayed. As far as cars killing more people than guns, that's somewhat of a decent argument. It would be better with much more robust statistics, as far as how many were used in the commission of a crime (D.U.I), accidents with x circumstances, etc. Denying someone the ability to drive a car makes it that much more difficult to move on with their lives if they are out of jail or prison, but I don't this taking place in removing their right to have legal access to a firearm until they are completely out of the system.
Private Instutions can do what they want to a certain extent, James. What I have been trying to say is that thanks to that, no one is truly "free" in the sense they want the gun laws to be.
Background checks don't stop criminals or others who want a gun from getting one.
Background checks only stop:
1) disallowed individuals from getting a gun in a retail establishment
2) law abiding citizens with screwed up database records from getting a gun immediately. These individuals eventually get their rights restored, but (in the meantime) the Constitution has been torn asunder as 30,000 people a year lose their 2nd Amendment rights for months or years.
If we were quartering U.S. troops in 30,000 homes a year... wouldn't there be an outcry?
If 30,000 homes a year were illegally searched... wouldn't there be an outcry?
You get my drift.
That we can temporarily suspend 2nd Amendment rights of 30,000 individuals per year and it is condoned by people in this group is appalling. That's how many people have their 2nd amendment rights restored every year after receiving "DENIED" on a NICS background check. It represents about 3% of all background checks. It means that the system is as much as 97% accurate. But 65% of people in this forum believe it is okay to stomp on the rights of those 3% as long as they (the 65%) get to keep and purchase their own guns.
Nice.
Background checks only stop:
1) disallowed individuals from getting a gun in a retail establishment
2) law abiding citizens with screwed up database records from getting a gun immediately. These individuals eventually get their rights restored, but (in the meantime) the Constitution has been torn asunder as 30,000 people a year lose their 2nd Amendment rights for months or years.
If we were quartering U.S. troops in 30,000 homes a year... wouldn't there be an outcry?
If 30,000 homes a year were illegally searched... wouldn't there be an outcry?
You get my drift.
That we can temporarily suspend 2nd Amendment rights of 30,000 individuals per year and it is condoned by people in this group is appalling. That's how many people have their 2nd amendment rights restored every year after receiving "DENIED" on a NICS background check. It represents about 3% of all background checks. It means that the system is as much as 97% accurate. But 65% of people in this forum believe it is okay to stomp on the rights of those 3% as long as they (the 65%) get to keep and purchase their own guns.
Nice.
Last edited:
crebralfix
member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,356
A convicted felon *should* be able to buy a gun. In fact, they were able to do so prior to 1968*. If they're eligible to be walking around free, then why not let them exercise their rights? If they commit a crime with the gun, then give 'em hard time. Someone who changes to conform to society's expectations should be allowed to defend his or her life with a weapon.
My main point here is that we, as a society, have not really made up our minds about the purpose of prison. Sometimes, it's "punishment" and other times it's "rehabilitation" and other times it's "unknown PC BS". If they're bad enough to require serious time, then make the time seriously difficult. Forget parole. It should include hard work, a tyrannical schedule, and stiff penalties for screwing up. Those that are a threat to other inmates should be chained up to enforce separation. No TV, no working out, no sex, and certainly no recreational drug use. Everything they eat and wear should be produced by the inmates--the prison should be mostly self-sufficient.
Again...no parole means everyone walking into a gun shop is eligible to purchase a gun.
*assuming state law allowed it.
My main point here is that we, as a society, have not really made up our minds about the purpose of prison. Sometimes, it's "punishment" and other times it's "rehabilitation" and other times it's "unknown PC BS". If they're bad enough to require serious time, then make the time seriously difficult. Forget parole. It should include hard work, a tyrannical schedule, and stiff penalties for screwing up. Those that are a threat to other inmates should be chained up to enforce separation. No TV, no working out, no sex, and certainly no recreational drug use. Everything they eat and wear should be produced by the inmates--the prison should be mostly self-sufficient.
Again...no parole means everyone walking into a gun shop is eligible to purchase a gun.
*assuming state law allowed it.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Venkman
Look.
If you let the guy out to wander the streets, then for God's sake let him out already. Let him have his life back. Let him start over.
This "we're letting you out but not really" is SO not working.
If you have concluded you can trust him outside, then trust him. If he does more bad things, then deal with him appropriately, for real.
It's hard to achieve redemption if you have nothing to lose.
Make the rewards for real rehabilitation the full restoration of rights. Really.
Make sure everybody knows that when a man is released, he has been released because he's okay to have in society.
If you do anything else, you're punishing the wrong group and visiting restrictions on all the wrong people.
You want the redeemed felon back in the civilized framework. So make it really possible. Really possible.
If you're completely convinced that rehabilitation and redemption are simply not possible, then don't even bother housing felons. Just hang them and get it over with.
If they're out, make sure we can trust them, and then trust them.
If we can't trust them, then don't inflict them on society.
Incrementalism. It's a wonderful thing.
The background check is just an increment. It doesn't work. Well, yes, it does, but what it accomplishes is not its stated purpose.
The structure of parole is wrong. Letting people out into the general population in the hope that they'll be good, while proscribing ownership and certain activities, is folly. You still wind up with honest citizens having to prove they are not him.
Look.
If you let the guy out to wander the streets, then for God's sake let him out already. Let him have his life back. Let him start over.
This "we're letting you out but not really" is SO not working.
If you have concluded you can trust him outside, then trust him. If he does more bad things, then deal with him appropriately, for real.
It's hard to achieve redemption if you have nothing to lose.
Make the rewards for real rehabilitation the full restoration of rights. Really.
Make sure everybody knows that when a man is released, he has been released because he's okay to have in society.
If you do anything else, you're punishing the wrong group and visiting restrictions on all the wrong people.
You want the redeemed felon back in the civilized framework. So make it really possible. Really possible.
If you're completely convinced that rehabilitation and redemption are simply not possible, then don't even bother housing felons. Just hang them and get it over with.
If they're out, make sure we can trust them, and then trust them.
If we can't trust them, then don't inflict them on society.
Luku
Member
Well the problem I have with the federal brady background check is that it creates a classes of prohibited persons.
JPFO has a good interview on there website about the brady system.
http://www.jpfo.org/tta050829.htm
I also have a problem with some of the states background check to buy a handgun/ get a ccw permit. According to what I have read some states deny you for a diagnosis for example antisocial personality disorder. What if the psychitrist is wrong in the diagnosis. My state indiana requires you to list if you had any psychriatic treatment.
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/41/17/6
JPFO has a good interview on there website about the brady system.
http://www.jpfo.org/tta050829.htm
I also have a problem with some of the states background check to buy a handgun/ get a ccw permit. According to what I have read some states deny you for a diagnosis for example antisocial personality disorder. What if the psychitrist is wrong in the diagnosis. My state indiana requires you to list if you had any psychriatic treatment.
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/41/17/6
esmith
Member
Background checks, used on a regular basis are very helpful for obvious and not so obvious reasons. If a criminal doesn't have to get a background check and he can walk in and out with a gun and go commit a crime the buisiness where he got the gun can be hurt legally. Therefore it makes them harder to sells weapons and if they still do at that point, they are going to be much more expensive. Ultimatley, it makes it harder for me to get a gun.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Helpful?
He knows he's a criminal. He knows not going to pass such a check. He's already going to shop somewhere else.
So you, being all law-abiding and stuff, go to the store, PAY for a background check, and in some states WAIT for your gun.
Fabulous. You get to pay and wait. The criminal is going to cash-and-carry a gun from his dealer.
Helpful?
For whom?
Background checks?
A broken concept from day one.
Well, a criminal already doesn't have to get a background check.
He knows he's a criminal. He knows not going to pass such a check. He's already going to shop somewhere else.
So you, being all law-abiding and stuff, go to the store, PAY for a background check, and in some states WAIT for your gun.
Fabulous. You get to pay and wait. The criminal is going to cash-and-carry a gun from his dealer.
Helpful?
For whom?
Background checks?
A broken concept from day one.
I personally think Background checks are fine. There should be some sort of way of ensuring Law Abiding citizens have full rights but guarding against illegal purchases. I wish this was a perfect world and that everyone that was walking the streets cauld be trusted with a firearm. Truth is there are many individuals walking the streets that should be in jail or some sort of mental facility. Due to government ineptitude they are still out there so a check system is needed since they aren't locked up. Unfortunately due to aforementioned ineptitude the check system is flawed as well so it's a catch 22.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
"Background checks are fine."
Personally, I think we need more government intervention.
We need more checkpoint traffic stops. Everybody should go through one on his way to work. I mean, there are drunk drivers out there, and you can't tell who they are. How do you know who can be trusted with a car? Everyone should have to submit to a Breathalyzer test on any trip he makes -- and he should have to PAY for it, too.
I mean, if it prevents ONE drunk driver from being on the road, it's worth it.
Of course, we'll only set up these checkpoints on main roads, like highways, since that's where most people drive. We wouldn't do it for the little side roads. Everyone obeys the law, even drunk drivers, so we'll catch all of them . . . well most of them . . . well SOME of them in these checkpoints.
And we'll have a database of drunk drivers. And drivers that someone has accused of possibly not having a child seat for their kids; no actual evidence will be required.
I mean, no one can object, right? Driving is a privilege, not a right. The state has the right to stop anyone at any time on the road and ensure they're being safe.
After all, it's for the children.
Personally, I think we need more government intervention.
We need more checkpoint traffic stops. Everybody should go through one on his way to work. I mean, there are drunk drivers out there, and you can't tell who they are. How do you know who can be trusted with a car? Everyone should have to submit to a Breathalyzer test on any trip he makes -- and he should have to PAY for it, too.
I mean, if it prevents ONE drunk driver from being on the road, it's worth it.
Of course, we'll only set up these checkpoints on main roads, like highways, since that's where most people drive. We wouldn't do it for the little side roads. Everyone obeys the law, even drunk drivers, so we'll catch all of them . . . well most of them . . . well SOME of them in these checkpoints.
And we'll have a database of drunk drivers. And drivers that someone has accused of possibly not having a child seat for their kids; no actual evidence will be required.
I mean, no one can object, right? Driving is a privilege, not a right. The state has the right to stop anyone at any time on the road and ensure they're being safe.
After all, it's for the children.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
