Steel Hayes
Member
As of yesterday, the ATF says that even if you have a CPL(when purchasing a firearm), you’ll still have to go through a background check.
Michigan CPL and NICS
- Thread starter Steel Hayes
- Start date
- Status
FlSwampRat
Member
In Fla you're required to pass a b/r regardless of whether you have a cwp or are a credentialed LEO buying a non-duty firearm.
FlSwampRat
Member
I have a customer whose b/r check is in the "Decision Pending" status since 2-6-2020. I just checked. Still pending. You can't determine a yes or a no in almost a month?
OP
OP
Steel Hayes
Member
Exactly.
Just speculation, but the added cost of doing more checks will get added to the price of the gun?
This is one of the many problems. It removes accountability and allows them to basically delay your purchase for whatever reason they choose for however long they want.
Of course, background checks have also been shown not to reduce homicide or suicide (even in CA with "universal" background checks), and many mass shooters have passed background checks. Background checks are merely "feel good" measures for hoplophobes that are usually called "common sense" by the left in response to a mass shooting committed by someone who passed a background check and carried out the murders in a "gun-free" zone.
Twiki357
Member
To expand on this, apparently not related to Michigan, Is that some states are issuing CCW’s for extended periods over the ATF five year limit, some for life. I suspect there will be more of this type of letter to other states in the not to distant future.
earlthegoat2
Member
If I am reading this right, because it is legal in MI to use marijuana, the process for giving a CPL no longer considers the part of the NICS check about being a habitual user of marijuana to be relevant to acquiring the license?
The main reason I have a CPL is ease of firearm purchases.
The main reason I have a CPL is ease of firearm purchases.
dogtown tom
Member
That's a Florida thing, not Federal.
FBI NICS tells dealers on a Delay "the Brady Law does not prohibit the transfer of this firearm on _______." (three business days beginning the next business day)
That's not the fault of FBI NICS, but slow or nonexistent response from a state database.
dogtown tom
Member
I disagree. I would say not ineffective, but imperfect. The background check while not perfect, is effective at identifying prohibited persons. So effective that prohibited persons ask someone else to go buy the gun for them.
Any background check system is only as good as the information provided to it. The two church shooters SHOULD have been denied, but both were failures by the reporting agencies to notify FBI NICS as required by law.
dogtown tom
Member
FBI NICS is a free service, toll free call or website query.
Some states require dealers to contact a state agency as the state point of contact......and charge the dealer for doing what the FBI provides for free. Michigan is not a state POC, so no fee would be passed on.
dogtown tom
Member
Well, no.
"Accountability" is why they delay or deny transactions....the law requires it.
The Brady Law does not prohibit the transfer of the firearm after three business days. Further, "whatever reason" isn't actually a reason. If you are continually delayed or denied, the FBI suggests you get a UPIN/Voluntary Appeal File.
It's for the children.
dogtown tom
Member
Correct. Marijuana is still prohibited by federal law. Just because some states have made it legal under state law does not change federal law.
Paco42
Member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2020
- Messages
- 72
Per federal law and regulations, marijuana use remains, very clearly, a characteristic making possession/transport of a firearm illegal. Whether marijuana use is deemed legal by a state is, frankly, irrelevant. Note to all—I think that the burgeoning discordancy of state and federal law w/r/t marijuana is not just ridiculous, but a clear disservice to the average Joe or Josephine. Many people do not know or fail to recognize that a state law making marijuana use, possession, etc., “legal” has no relevancy to federal law. One may still be charged under federal statutes and rightly convicted using same, at least from a legal standpoint. There should be a great, concerted effort to bring state and federal regulations together to avoid confusion, alternative routes to legal jeopardy, and more. But until then, the ATF finding re Michigan CPLs and firearm purchase, is, as I see it, necessary and appropriate under the law.
A quick note re the “effectiveness” of background checks: in making evaluation of same, a definition of “effective” is necessary, allowing one then to determine means of measuring effectiveness. Many attempts to do so suffer from incorporated bias—in either direction. It’s not at all hard to devise a survey, or cherry-pick a database, to produce appearances suggestive that a given conclusion is reasonable and correct. That’s especially true with claims that background checks are NOT effective. The outcomes that background checks are most obviously trying to prevent are, thankfully, uncommon, despite media hyperbole about the “ongoing epidemic of gun violence” or the like. When it comes to preventing uncommon/rare events, all sorts of “interventions” can be evaluated in such a way as “show” that the intervention worked or did not. It’s especially easy to misleadingly show that an intervention did not work. Given the infrequency of the events one wishes to prevent, significant variability in the incidence rate of the event, and the nature of statistics and probability determinations, it takes a very broadly-reaching database and a large chunk of time to show that there has been a significant reduction in the outcomes of concern. Smaller studies that do not find evidence of reduction of undesired events should not be interpreted as demonstrating that no effect exists—merely that the study, due to insufficient power, failed to detect an effect. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as the saying goes.
A quick note re the “effectiveness” of background checks: in making evaluation of same, a definition of “effective” is necessary, allowing one then to determine means of measuring effectiveness. Many attempts to do so suffer from incorporated bias—in either direction. It’s not at all hard to devise a survey, or cherry-pick a database, to produce appearances suggestive that a given conclusion is reasonable and correct. That’s especially true with claims that background checks are NOT effective. The outcomes that background checks are most obviously trying to prevent are, thankfully, uncommon, despite media hyperbole about the “ongoing epidemic of gun violence” or the like. When it comes to preventing uncommon/rare events, all sorts of “interventions” can be evaluated in such a way as “show” that the intervention worked or did not. It’s especially easy to misleadingly show that an intervention did not work. Given the infrequency of the events one wishes to prevent, significant variability in the incidence rate of the event, and the nature of statistics and probability determinations, it takes a very broadly-reaching database and a large chunk of time to show that there has been a significant reduction in the outcomes of concern. Smaller studies that do not find evidence of reduction of undesired events should not be interpreted as demonstrating that no effect exists—merely that the study, due to insufficient power, failed to detect an effect. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as the saying goes.
It is so they can check if you are a Medical Marijuana user.
Someone got a CW permit a year or more ago, and is now a Marijuana user, they data bases need to be checked.
Go buy a gun then suck down a 12 pack of beer but that's OK!
Someone got a CW permit a year or more ago, and is now a Marijuana user, they data bases need to be checked.
Go buy a gun then suck down a 12 pack of beer but that's OK!
dogtown tom
Member
No, it's not okay. Impaired is impaired and being in possession of a firearm while drunk is likely a crime in every state.
I'm sure once marijuana is legalized at the federal level, some crack addict will say "Go buy a gun then smoke a bowl ....but that's OK!".
stchman
Member
I was under the impression that an FFL release the gun to the customer if after getting a "Delay" and there is no response from the NICS folks after THREE business days.
This is how it is done in Missouri, there are businesses like DIck's and Walmart that will wait for a "Proceed" before releasing the firearm, but this is a company policy.
FlSwampRat
Member
As Dogtown Tom noted, Fla is one of those states where the state is the point of contact for dealers to run b/r checks. After Parkland things got really different. We can't release a firearm, pawn redemption or sale, until we get an approval.
Have one customer that pawned and redeemed her firearm twice before and was approved both times but right now she's appealing a non-approval.
George P
member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2018
- Messages
- 7,772
And wait three days to take possession if you do not have the CWFL for handgun and now longgun
George P
member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2018
- Messages
- 7,772
I had to do a BG check on a gun I had on consignment in order to get it back; wasn't pawned, just in a LGS for sale
FlSwampRat
Member
Cinco de waito in Broward County. And that's business days, don't go throwing none of those weekends and holidays in there.
FlSwampRat
Member
dogtown tom
Member
George P
member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2018
- Messages
- 7,772
yep and pay the $5........LGS is a Tallahassee Captain full time; does this on the weekend
- Status
