Background checks, my thoughts and concerns…

[mbt2001]

This is something I have been saying to my "Democrat" family members in the hope that the more educated they are the less spirited they are.

I hear people throw out "background" checks and then wave their hand as if it is an extremely easy and simple solution that all of us our nuts for opposing. This, more or less, is my response. Not to change minds, but to bring up some serious potential wrinkles with that line of thought.

I am not sure if you guys have thought about it, or need some ammo, or have a critique, but I would like to hear what you think.

There is a real danger here in passing a Universal Background check law that ends up making more criminals, out of previously “law abiding” people, and solving no problems. Suppose [the Moderator] has never been Elk hunting, he has small caliber rifles only, so I loan him a larger caliber rifle. Do I need to run a background check? Right now, the FFL's run those and they charge anywhere from $25.00 - $100.00 per gun to do a background check, but I am just letting him “borrow” the gun right? Actually since it is in his “custody” a background check will needed. How does that work between husbands and wives? If my wife is carrying a gun that I bought, is there a chance I could get arrested?

The “no fly” list has approx. 2,000,000 names on it. No one is sure how you get on the list and there is no way to get off. Once you are on the list, you are on the list. We have all heard the story of Senators and children ending up on the no-fly list, we do not want that to happen to the mental health index, or it will not work properly and fail in its purpose. What appeals process is their going to be for the mental health index? Is it going to be another government system that takes years to decide nothing? What about domestic violence? I have a few friends who have gotten divorced and their wives’ has filed protective orders against the guys though there is no history of violence. It is, in fact, completely common to do that in divorces, or so I am told by lawyers I know. There are of course cases of real abuse though… So again, we are denying someone their civil rights, it is not a small matter.

Further, what do we do with people that are trying to purchase guns that are on the criminal or mental health lists? If we do nothing, just deny them, then there is a chance that they will get the guns by other means. We need to have a system that responds to denials from the list. Then what do we do? Interviewing them will not stop anything, maybe in some cases, but we really should lock them up of commit them…

So we have just gutted the Constitution/Bill of Rights... And for what? A solution that everyone admits will solve nothing.

Drug dealers and criminals cannot sue people in court for non-payment on a dime bag. They cannot call the police when someone breaks into their house and steals their meth and file an insurance claim. Guns are the cost of doing business, so even if they cost $100,000 the drug dealers will buy them.

Faced with such an onslaught on liberties and our culture it is better to do as the NRA said and hire some armed guards and then implement a mental health index and criminal list and ensure a fair and speedy appeals process and leave it at that.

 

[1911 guy]

Well thought out. Makes a logical case stating the problems with the system as proposed. It won't persuade an idealogue, but it makes a persuasive argument to one who isn't closed minded.

 

[mbt2001]

Considering that most people are ignorant, and a lot of these laws coast in on what people THINK they know, I will take it.

 

[Skylerbone]

Those Executive Orders, asking doctors and children to spy on and snitch out parents, those are why.

Imagine that same divorce for a moment. Let's say there was abuse that was real and substantiated. The husband is listed as banned. The wife, living in fear for her safety has a hard time of things and visits her doctor. He listens, prescribes an anti-depressant to help her "relax and get through it".

Two months later the wife is fine. She stops medication as things are looking up and the divorce is nearly finalized. She gets up for work, walks to her car and is threatened by her ex. She files for an RO, that piece of paper that keeps no one safe and decides it's time to buy a gun. She files for a permit and...is denied. Her dutiful physician has wisely contacted authorities about a mentally depressed patient. She is, thanks to a truly gray area, adjudged mentally defective by the Government. Now think about all those men and women in uniform being encouraged to put in for disability on the basis of PTSD. Could be a lot of people signing their ownership rights away if registration becomes law, not to mention the myriad of sinister implications as documented by history.

 

[we are not amused]

While about half the guns I have bought were through a regular gun dealer, the other half were not.

Some were bought at estate auctions, a couple were bought from private individuals at guns show, others were bought and or traded, with family members and close friends.

mbt2001 is quite correct in the loopholes and problems with current background checks, including the fact that if you have a common name, you may well be denied a gun based solely upon the fact that somebody else with the same name committed a crime.

That is where most of the silliness concerning the "no fly" list comes from. (which is about as stupid and unconstitutional as you can get)

To be even marginally effective, universal background checks must include a gun registry, otherwise how will they know you didn't undergo a background check?

 

[ridgerunner1965]

doctors being in charge o this chit is rediculous. i ve been goin to my doc for 3 or 4 years and ill bet he aint talked to me 10 min.how wud he know me?

 

[meanmrmustard]

Well thought out. Makes a logical case stating the problems with the system as proposed. It won't persuade an idealogue, but it makes a persuasive argument to one who isn't closed minded.

Agreed.