eric.cartman
Member
Please educate me. I read opinions here against BG checks aka NICS.
Please tell me why you're against it.
Please tell me why you're against it.
Argument against NICS and/or other BG Checks
- Thread starter eric.cartman
- Start date
- Status
TallPine
Member
Well, for one thing - all the chief executive has to do is to shut down the call in system for FFLs either temporarily or permanently, and "Shezzam!" all legal gun sales are stopped. "National emergency" or some such other contrived nonsense.
That, and the potential for gradual incrementation of the "prohibited persons" list - such as for parking tickets or being a "suspected terrorists".
Also, now an ex-felon has another reason to break into my house to steal a gun, because he/she cannot just go into a store and buy one.
Not to mention "ex-post facto" punishment of decades past crimes.
Should I have to have a background check before I am allowed to write to my Congressman ???
That, and the potential for gradual incrementation of the "prohibited persons" list - such as for parking tickets or being a "suspected terrorists".
Also, now an ex-felon has another reason to break into my house to steal a gun, because he/she cannot just go into a store and buy one.
Not to mention "ex-post facto" punishment of decades past crimes.
Should I have to have a background check before I am allowed to write to my Congressman ???
JohnBT
Member
Yes, and you can only write once a month. 
Bubbles
Member
In theory the BATFE is charged with restoring the RKBA of felons who have behaved themselves for a certain amount of time. In practice the BATFE doesn't do it because Congress hasn't allocated funding for it.
So, if the anti's take over Congress all they have to do to halt sales of new guns from FFL's would be to de-fund NICS.
So, if the anti's take over Congress all they have to do to halt sales of new guns from FFL's would be to de-fund NICS.
Sistema1927
Member
1) It doesn't stop criminals from obtaining weapons.
2) It keeps law abiding citizens from defending themselves by:
a) intimidating them from attempting to buy guns, and
b) occasionally denying them due to faulty records.
3) It doesn't stop criminals from obtaining weapons.
4) I don't see any mention in the US Constitution or in the writings of any of the Founding Fathers of the need to be "vetted" prior to exercising a right.
5) It doesn't stop criminals from obtaining weapons.
2) It keeps law abiding citizens from defending themselves by:
a) intimidating them from attempting to buy guns, and
b) occasionally denying them due to faulty records.
3) It doesn't stop criminals from obtaining weapons.
4) I don't see any mention in the US Constitution or in the writings of any of the Founding Fathers of the need to be "vetted" prior to exercising a right.
5) It doesn't stop criminals from obtaining weapons.
eric.cartman
Member
i'm with you on this one, it does feel strange being called in. can't help but to feel like i'm being treated like a criminal.
TallPine
Member
Why would you buy a gun unless you were a criminal?
eric.cartman
Member
Yep. Those feeling are exactly what the gun grabbers want, aren't they?
TallPine
Member
That was sarcasm, eric - in case you didn't notice
eric.cartman
Member
Maybe so, but that's how i feel, and that's how they want me to feel. MUST.FIGHT.IT. GRRR...
General Geoff
Member
Background checks are an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. As such, they should be abolished.
I'm waiting for the day when guns are treated like power tools (which is what they are).
I'm waiting for the day when guns are treated like power tools (which is what they are).
wjustinen
Member
Laws don't prevent bad people from having or doing anything
Therefor, unless there is some other legitimate reason for the law, there is no reason for it to be on the books.
Of course, as the 2A requires that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", the issue of background checks should never have been an issue in the first place.
Anyone who is not incarcerated must not be hindered in the exercise of their 2A rights.
It may seem "reasonable" to try to prevent "bad" people from having things with which to do bad things. It shouldn't take much thought or experience to realize that it just doesn't work.
Therefor, unless there is some other legitimate reason for the law, there is no reason for it to be on the books.
Of course, as the 2A requires that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", the issue of background checks should never have been an issue in the first place.
Anyone who is not incarcerated must not be hindered in the exercise of their 2A rights.
It may seem "reasonable" to try to prevent "bad" people from having things with which to do bad things. It shouldn't take much thought or experience to realize that it just doesn't work.
SoCalShooter
Member
wjustinen, I agree with you. People who think laws are a deterrent to criminals committing crimes are naive. Laws prevent those of us who would probably not commit the crime anyway. They just give us extra incentive not to do it. But to someone who want to rob, murder, rape etc., the law doesn't prevent it, but rather punishes the action once they are caught. Because it is already illegal for a felon to buy a gun, why do we need a process that punishes everyone. NICS is an outright admission that laws don't prevent criminals from doing what they want to do, given that we have now had to implement a process to try and see if criminals are indeed breaking a law already on the books. What it does is punishes everyone for a few bad actors.
pdowg881
Member
In my case, the law doesn't really stop me from committing any violent crimes. That's my personal moral law that prevents me from doing those things. And I think many people's moral laws may not be so good. It's not that I can't, it's that I shouldn't and I won't.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Nobody has ever done any study which legitimately could conclude that any gun control law ever reduced the incident rate of violent crimes with firearms. The converse has been reasonably concluded--and more than once.
About all that gun control laws have done is create more categories of criminality--which have nothing at all to do with criminal intent or violence.
Art
About all that gun control laws have done is create more categories of criminality--which have nothing at all to do with criminal intent or violence.
Art
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
I wonder how the leftist extremists would react to a law requiring background checks before voting.
Outlaws
Member
The Constitution is quaint.
IA_farmboy
Member
I'm not sure I agree with abolishing the NICS but I'll play the part and argue for it anyway.
The Constitution does not GRANT the people the right to keep and bear arms, it PROTECTS the right to keep and bear arms. The right to arm oneself is inherent to being a person. That right cannot be restricted by the government. The government is tasked with protecting our rights and has been doing a poor job of it.
The people should not need to ask permission of the state in order to lawfully arm themselves, that permission was already granted by the Second Amendment. What part of "shall not be infringed" is misunderstood here?
The requirement of a background check prior to a firearm purchase is likely to step on a few other parts of the constitution. The desire to exercise our right to arm ourselves is not "probable cause" for search of our papers (fourth amendment). Having a person confined for a crime and then punished again by taking firearms presently owned and denying future purchase is in violation of the fifth amendment. (Taking the fifth amendment argument is a bit of a stretch.) Allowing states, and lesser governmental units, to prohibit firearm ownership is in violation of the fourteen amendment which assures us equal protection under the law and prohibits the states from abridging our rights as protected under the Constitution.
The checking of one's background before allowing a purchase of a firearm is in direct violation of "innocent until proven guilty" as one is assumed guilty of an offense by the very nature of making a criminal check, no matter how "instant" it becomes.
The fact that records of the firearm sale is recorded in ways accessible to the government without our permission or knowledge is not only a violation of our privacy but shows that we do not truly OWN our firearms. They may claim that it is only the firearm that is being tracked but I know that is a big steaming pile. It is the firearm OWNER that is being tracked in those records. (I'm not sure what happens with those 4473s so I may be way off base here.)
Now, with that said I could also make arguments FOR a background check but that is not what was asked.
The Constitution does not GRANT the people the right to keep and bear arms, it PROTECTS the right to keep and bear arms. The right to arm oneself is inherent to being a person. That right cannot be restricted by the government. The government is tasked with protecting our rights and has been doing a poor job of it.
The people should not need to ask permission of the state in order to lawfully arm themselves, that permission was already granted by the Second Amendment. What part of "shall not be infringed" is misunderstood here?
The requirement of a background check prior to a firearm purchase is likely to step on a few other parts of the constitution. The desire to exercise our right to arm ourselves is not "probable cause" for search of our papers (fourth amendment). Having a person confined for a crime and then punished again by taking firearms presently owned and denying future purchase is in violation of the fifth amendment. (Taking the fifth amendment argument is a bit of a stretch.) Allowing states, and lesser governmental units, to prohibit firearm ownership is in violation of the fourteen amendment which assures us equal protection under the law and prohibits the states from abridging our rights as protected under the Constitution.
The checking of one's background before allowing a purchase of a firearm is in direct violation of "innocent until proven guilty" as one is assumed guilty of an offense by the very nature of making a criminal check, no matter how "instant" it becomes.
The fact that records of the firearm sale is recorded in ways accessible to the government without our permission or knowledge is not only a violation of our privacy but shows that we do not truly OWN our firearms. They may claim that it is only the firearm that is being tracked but I know that is a big steaming pile. It is the firearm OWNER that is being tracked in those records. (I'm not sure what happens with those 4473s so I may be way off base here.)
Now, with that said I could also make arguments FOR a background check but that is not what was asked.
Frog48
Member
Thats one heck of an understatement.
Because the only function it serves is to make firearm purchases a pain in the rear for us law abiding folks. It doesnt do the slightest to prevent unsavory characters from obtaining weapons.
Beagle-zebub
Member
Presumption of innocence.
There is a difference between restraint before you act and restraint after you act. Government is not authorized to restrain us before we act. Does a newspaper need to get a permit every time it buys a printing press? Yet a newspaper can be held liable for using that press for liable.
If government takes one power that it is prohibited from taking, then it does not have limits. If it can violate the prohibition against infringement of our right to keep and bear arms and at the same time violate our right not to be a witness against ourselves (both of which NICS violates), then it can just as easily ignore habeas corpus or can exercise any other of the powers it is prohibited from exercising.
The whole point of limiting the size and scope of government is to preserve freedom. If you think that a little destruction of freedom is alright, then you open the door to a little more and then later a little more, etc., until one day you wake up and find that the plunder and control of government is intolerable and the only option is civil conflict. So the ultimate effect of accepting little intrusions on freedom is you or some later generation being placed in the position of either bloodshed or suffering under intolerable slavery.
One bee sting is slightly painful. Thousands are lethal.
If government takes one power that it is prohibited from taking, then it does not have limits. If it can violate the prohibition against infringement of our right to keep and bear arms and at the same time violate our right not to be a witness against ourselves (both of which NICS violates), then it can just as easily ignore habeas corpus or can exercise any other of the powers it is prohibited from exercising.
The whole point of limiting the size and scope of government is to preserve freedom. If you think that a little destruction of freedom is alright, then you open the door to a little more and then later a little more, etc., until one day you wake up and find that the plunder and control of government is intolerable and the only option is civil conflict. So the ultimate effect of accepting little intrusions on freedom is you or some later generation being placed in the position of either bloodshed or suffering under intolerable slavery.
One bee sting is slightly painful. Thousands are lethal.
I have a close friend who, at the beginning of May, went to purchase a firearm and received a NICS denial. This guy has never previously owned a gun. He has a home, kids, a good job, several college degrees. He attends church on a regular basis. He has one misdemeanor for which he paid a $500 fine in 1984. This misdemeanor was NOT for battery or assault or anything like that. There is NOTHING that should prevent him from owning a gun. So... he appealed the denial. Within 5 days (as required by law), the ATF sent him a message and request for a fingerprint card. He immediately went to the local police station, got fingerprinted, and sent off the card. A week later, he received a letter stating that his appeal is under investigation, and that they are under no time restriction at all to resolve his case. That was May 12. He is still waiting.
Is this what they mean by "shall not be infringed"?
He lives in a large city with literally HUNDREDS of people with same/similar name. He used is SS# on the NICS check.
I have no doubts that he will eventually prevail. But it has become increasingly clear to me that NICS is an abomination. They can rob your 2nd amendment rights without so much as a hearing. They can take all the time they want and are beholden to no one. If he were a BG, there would be no problem at all for him to buy a gun in a FTF transaction. Because he is a "good guy", he is ready to just give up. He does not have the money to hire an attorney, if that is what it ends up taking to move this along. He said that he has gone 40 years without a gun, and he can probably go 40 more.
Databases are only as good as the information put in to them, and are only as good as the people putting that information in. With a keystroke, you can be denied your constitutional rights with very little recourse. The law allows you to sue and get your 2nd amendment rights back (and even pay your legal fees), but you are going to have to front thousands of $$$ in order to be able to do so.
If an omnipotent power could guarantee a perfect database and perfect administrators such that NICS was 100% reliable, then I would be all for it.
If legitimate purchasers could get their rights restored in a timely (one or two weeks) manner, I would be for it. But over 300,000 people have been wrongly denied by NICS (and later regained their rights by appeal). That's 300,000 times that someone's constitutional rights have been infringed. And, while it might have delayed some BG from getting a gun, it did not prevent him from getting it through other channels.
In the end, NICS is just an infringement on law abiding citizens, and that is why I am against it.
Is this what they mean by "shall not be infringed"?
He lives in a large city with literally HUNDREDS of people with same/similar name. He used is SS# on the NICS check.
I have no doubts that he will eventually prevail. But it has become increasingly clear to me that NICS is an abomination. They can rob your 2nd amendment rights without so much as a hearing. They can take all the time they want and are beholden to no one. If he were a BG, there would be no problem at all for him to buy a gun in a FTF transaction. Because he is a "good guy", he is ready to just give up. He does not have the money to hire an attorney, if that is what it ends up taking to move this along. He said that he has gone 40 years without a gun, and he can probably go 40 more.
Databases are only as good as the information put in to them, and are only as good as the people putting that information in. With a keystroke, you can be denied your constitutional rights with very little recourse. The law allows you to sue and get your 2nd amendment rights back (and even pay your legal fees), but you are going to have to front thousands of $$$ in order to be able to do so.
If an omnipotent power could guarantee a perfect database and perfect administrators such that NICS was 100% reliable, then I would be all for it.
If legitimate purchasers could get their rights restored in a timely (one or two weeks) manner, I would be for it. But over 300,000 people have been wrongly denied by NICS (and later regained their rights by appeal). That's 300,000 times that someone's constitutional rights have been infringed. And, while it might have delayed some BG from getting a gun, it did not prevent him from getting it through other channels.
In the end, NICS is just an infringement on law abiding citizens, and that is why I am against it.
zeroskillz
Member
A slightly different point of view
Being that I sell them, I appreciate the small extra level of protection from civil liability suits. OTOH, I don't like paper work.
Really though, from purchases in the past, I can completely relate to being made to feel like a criminal. Mind you, this came totally from me, not from the dealers I bought from, but there was always a moment of wondering if I'll be denied for some reason. The mental quick check to make sure I hadn't left a parking ticket unpaid or something else random that might come up.
Fortunately for me, passing the check was never an issue, and so far hasn't been one selling them either.
Being that I sell them, I appreciate the small extra level of protection from civil liability suits. OTOH, I don't like paper work.
Really though, from purchases in the past, I can completely relate to being made to feel like a criminal. Mind you, this came totally from me, not from the dealers I bought from, but there was always a moment of wondering if I'll be denied for some reason. The mental quick check to make sure I hadn't left a parking ticket unpaid or something else random that might come up.
Fortunately for me, passing the check was never an issue, and so far hasn't been one selling them either.
db_tanker
Member
This is just another reason why there is only one firearm in my house with a 4473 on record with my name on it...did have two, but that one was sold.
I don't care what anyone says, the BATFE sure as hell DOES keep those records...call me a loony with a tin-foil hat, I don't mind.
I will keep on doing person to person transactions and I will NEVER live in a state that denies that right.
And as far as the for or against the NICS and 4473 check...I am against, I reckon. Simply another branch of a bloated government that has its head shoved so far up its third point of contact they will never see daylight ever again...
Ah well...rant off...
D
I don't care what anyone says, the BATFE sure as hell DOES keep those records...call me a loony with a tin-foil hat, I don't mind.
I will keep on doing person to person transactions and I will NEVER live in a state that denies that right.
And as far as the for or against the NICS and 4473 check...I am against, I reckon. Simply another branch of a bloated government that has its head shoved so far up its third point of contact they will never see daylight ever again...
Ah well...rant off...
D
- Status
