1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Are background checks necessary?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by monotonous_iterancy, Dec 30, 2012.

  1. monotonous_iterancy

    monotonous_iterancy Well-Known Member

    I've been wondering, do you all oppose all gun regulation on principal? I do mostly, but I don't really have a problem with undergoing a background check, so long as it's decentralized.

    Basically, my question has two parts.

    1. Is there any level of regulation you're okay with?

    2. Are 4473s and things necessary?
  2. EBK

    EBK Well-Known Member

    ...Shall not be infringed.

    That is all
  3. bk42261

    bk42261 Well-Known Member

    Just saw an ad for some car that can go from 0-60 in 4 seconds or something. No mention of background check to see if you're a repeat
    speeding offender, or a check with your CLEO for approval.
    Don't recall anything in the Constitution about private transportation, but seems like speeding kills more innocents than firearms yearly.
    Following the background check is to save lives argument, shouldn't we be checking on people who want one of these "potentially deadly" cars?
    Besides, who, except for police and military need to have such "high-
    powered" vehicles?
    Just sayin
  4. browningguy

    browningguy Well-Known Member

    I think background checks are fine, I really don't want criminals and insane people to have an easier time getting weapons. The only people who's rights are infringed by a background check are those groups.

    And to be blunt if I had the opportunity to use NICS I wouldn't even sell to another private individual without a background check.
  5. bushmaster1313

    bushmaster1313 Well-Known Member

    Background checks are a good idea.
    Some people should not be allowed guns.
    I would support requiring all transfers to go through an FFL and a NICS check.

    My $0.02
  6. JVaughn

    JVaughn Well-Known Member

    No check, no restriction, no regulation.
    Shall not be infringed.
  7. Vaarok

    Vaarok Well-Known Member

    If there were an easy way to verify someone was a "good-guy" without hassle, most people would probably use it. Like the custom of flashing a CCW just out of courtesy if you're doing a parkinglot transfer. I have no strong opinion, but I approve of providing people such a way to reassure the other party in a transaction if they so choose.

    BLACKHAWKNJ Well-Known Member

    No background check required to become a parent, no background check required for the purchase of alcoholic beverages or large amounts of gasoline or other flammable substances.
  9. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Let's look at this from the standpoint of the law.

    The requirement is on the FFL holders (dealers) because they are the ones regulated and THEY are the ones required to run a background check to verify that you are not a prohibited person. The regulation of a business.

    Individual citizens aren't.

    You'd have to create a new law that requires all citizens to have such a check performed before transferring a firearm to another. This is fundamentally different from a regulated business transferring a firearm to an individual.

    In addition to a new law regulating the individual you have to create an infrastructure to make complying with the new law possible. Ideally, you'd need to make it not just possible but practical. Now you have to pay for that infrastructure to make it practical for you and me to transfer ownership of a firearm between the two of us. That's another burden on the budget unless you charge the individuals for the check and that's a burden on us.

    All that laid out doesn't mean a thing in this case. The firearms used by the madman at Sandy Hook weren't legally transferred. He shot his mom in the head and took them and no law in the world requiring a background check would have made any difference at all. Nothing that has been proposed, other than mental health care at the right time, would or could have stopped Adam Lanza from slaughtering 20 little kids. So what's the point of background checks when this murdering monster wouldn't have been affected by them???
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2012
  10. bikerdoc

    bikerdoc Moderator

    Repeal the GCA of 68
  11. rbernie

    rbernie Well-Known Member

    From a prior post on the topic:

  12. gbran

    gbran Well-Known Member

    No background checks. Redefine what is a prohibited person (it's too broad right now), then deal with them appropriately when found in posession.
  13. monotonous_iterancy

    monotonous_iterancy Well-Known Member

    How would you define prohibited person?
  14. gbran

    gbran Well-Known Member

    It would certainly continue to include those adjudicated mentally deffective. It would especially include violent and serious criminals and probably many others. I'm not real concened about the farmer who ran afoul of EPA or Endangered Species Act laws and was charged with a felony. There are many violators of victimless crimes that I don't have a problem with owning guns.... assuming they did their time.
  15. Zombiekid

    Zombiekid Active Member

    I am perfectly ok with background checks and the 4473. However a persons mental status and background are blocked by the ACLU. So the NICS can only check for felonies, not if the person is one missed dose of meds from something horrible. That's the part of the background check tags need to be corrected. But, like every other governmental program, it fails and is basically useless.
  16. Sport45

    Sport45 Well-Known Member

    I think once someone has been determined to be unfit to possess a firearm something should be branded on their forehead. Maybe 666 or something.

    That way we wouldn't need to worry about background checks for FTF sales... :)

    Seriously, I think private transfers are fine as long as the seller has no reason to doubt the buyer's legality. ID with birth date and state of residence is minimum proof for me.
  17. monotonous_iterancy

    monotonous_iterancy Well-Known Member

    I'll be honest, I'm a little surprised to see some of you concede private sales and transfers.
  18. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Well-Known Member

    If I believed that the protections written into the law protecting us from using 4473s as a tracking system were serious and bullet proof, I wouldn't have any problem with doing a background check with every transfer.

    But I don't. The (ab)use of such a system as being de-facto registration is inevitable.
  19. gdcpony

    gdcpony Well-Known Member

    I have no problem being checked. It isn't flawless, but what is? My right is not infringed unless I have something in my past that has caused it. I used to get delayed every time until I got my CCW and was never overly distraught. I have a couple misdemeanors and was born outside the US (military parents), so I figured it was those and let it go. I would get my gun in three days.

    However, I don't like the serial number being recorded every time I purchase. No way around it even if only for the dealer to track inventory.
  20. LSMS

    LSMS Well-Known Member

    I don't have a problem with background checks. Costs me an extra 10 minutes. I've never had one go under further review though. Might change my opinion if I had to wait 3 days before I received what I paid for.

Share This Page