What if the background check was removed permanently?

If background checks went away would you be happy with that.

  • YES!

    Votes: 57 60.0%

  • NO!

    Votes: 17 17.9%

  • Conflicted

    Votes: 21 22.1%
  • Total voters
    95
Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert said:
None of those are rights. There is a difference.
Click to expand...
No it isnt.
Its absolutly normal and needed to have requirments to use some "tools" like cars, planes or guns.

Dont get blindsided just because guns are your hobby or because you dont thrust your goverment. We already know and see, that in society are ppl who will hurt others for that or that reasson. Why make it easy for tham?

Over here you need for your gun licence:
Clear criminal record - there are ofc cathegories of records what matters and you also can ask to erase that record (its procedure, not granted),
Health check - we have public heatlh care so everybody have its own doctor.
Prove that you can safely manipulate with gun - written test and practical exams. Its absed on types of licence (collectors, hunting, sporting, proffesional and carry)

And i really dont see why this should be problem. Its almost same requrments as with driving licence.
 
Criminals tend to be poor or uneducated. We used to exclude the poor from owning high performance guns with measures like the NFA -$200 in the 30s was like thousands of dollars today. You could buy a nice new Buick for under $600. Then we tried to restrict the poor from owning handguns with the GCA 68’s import ban on affordable small guns.

Tiring of that approach apparently, the Brady law targets the uneducated or not too bright (very inefficiently) by requiring a form to be filled out exactly and by encouraging the smarter criminals to use a straw purchaser.

None of this works well, and I don’t want to find out what the next strategy will be. It too will impose a disproportionate burden or restriction on the law abiding with very little actual gain except making some folks feel good.
 
Idahou said:
Would you allow just everybody to drive car without proving that he/she is capable of doing so? Or piloting plane? Or practice medicene? Regulations are needed in society

Its not question of pro-gun or anti-gun, but question of common sence and fact that your dad didnt get gun isnt changing it. It sounds little bit offensive, but i dont mean it that way.
Click to expand...

Just what we need more of, "common sense gun laws". Where have I heard that phrase?
 
Shanvanvocht said:
Lets remember that background checks were not required until the Brady Act of 1993 and the NICS system did not go live until 1998. Very many of us were buying our firearms long before that without problem. Sure, there are a plenty of people whom I would not like to see with a gun, but that is not my call.
Click to expand...

Good point. I bought a shotgun in the late 1970s and there was no background check. I like that. If it worked then, why not now? Another insult on my recent gun purchase (besides the background check) is that we were told we had to turn in a form to our local police department. Why do they need to know?

But if there is no background check, what options does a store owner have to deny a sale, say if a guy comes in who is pretty clearly unstable and the owner does not feel right about selling that person a gun?

I have a gun safety inspection certificated from my dad purchasing a gun in 1968 and it says he had obtained a license to purchase the gun.
 
I suppose I would be ok without it. I suppose, I see it in much the same light as having to take my shoes off to get inside an airport. Just some eye candy that is supposed to make me feel safe and that the .gov is keeping me safe.

An inconvenience for some, a non issue to others, might stop some, certainly cannot and will not stop all.
 
Guess I would have to say No.
So many Illegals coming into this country each day from all over the world. Fake IDS and paperwork can be had anywhere.
Our court system turns so many criminals back onto the streets that it has become a joke.
I wholeheartedly believe in the 2nd amendment and the Right bear arms.
But, There has to be a line drawn somewhere to Separate the honest, law-abiding CITIZEN from Criminals.
Its not right to have to prove your Innocence before. But, "I" dont know any other way.
Just me.
 
aaaaa said:
But if there is no background check, what options does a store owner have to deny a sale, say if a guy comes in who is pretty clearly unstable and the owner does not feel right about selling that person a gun?
Click to expand...
A shop owner, no matter what business he/she is in, has every right to refuse service to any individual, so long as it is not for a discriminatory reason. For example, you cannot refuse service to a person because they are female (black, hispanic, gay), but you can refuse service to this particular female because they are intoxicated.
 
Idahou said:
No it isnt.
Its absolutly normal and needed to have requirments to use some "tools" like cars, planes or guns.
Click to expand...
Yes it is. I do not need permission to exercise any other right. And last time I checked the stats, doctors and people driving cars, both of which have already received permission to exercise that privilege, kill more people every year than guns.

According to our Bill of Rights, which does not grant rights but simply innumerates those rights granted to us by our creator, not the government, is extremely clear. I have the right to keep and bear arms. How the Czech Republic chooses to address those issues is their prerogative. But I don't live in the same country as you.

In the US, the right to keep and bear arms and the right protect myself is not something the government can give me. I am given that right by simply drawing breath. As are all people as far as I'm concerned. Driving is a privilege. Not a right. There is a massive difference between a privilege and a right. At least in the US, which is all I can speak to as I've never lived anywhere else. Other countries and people's are free to do as they see fit. But I'm not for having to prove my need or ability to exercise a right.

In so far as laws go. Criminals, by their very nature, do not follow the law. You can pass any training requirement or law you want, they will only impact those who actually follow the law. I work in law enforcement, the only people these gun laws catch are the extremely stupid ones. Most guns used in crime are stolen and sold on the streets with absolutely no care in the world as to what the law might be.
 
aaaaa said:
....

But if there is no background check, what options does a store owner have to deny a sale, say if a guy comes in who is pretty clearly unstable and the owner does not feel right about selling that person a gun?

....
Click to expand...

Probably around a dozen or so years back I was talking to the guy behind the counter at the gun store when a couple walked in. Another employee went over to help them. The couple had a lot of questions and the guy I was talking with and I started eavesdropping. Something didn't seem right. They didn't know much about guns, or what they wanted, they didn't even have a good answer regarding why they wanted a gun (How many times do we ask each other here "What do you plan to do with it?"). The guy I was talking to and I both picked up a nefarious vibe from them. It reminded me of the scene from "Borat." The employee went and got the owner.

The owner comes out, talks to them a little, he even pulled a couple handguns out of the case. He then proceeded to tell the couple how difficult they were to operate, how much training would help them out, and how bad he'd feel selling them an expensive gun they wouldn't appreciate or use. He sent them on their way with several business cards for people who offer training.

Probably doesn't answer your question but I wonder what that couple was up to, the consequences of that interaction, and marvel at the store owner's ability to so diplomatically send those customers on their way without making the sale.
 
Idahou said:
No it isnt.
Its absolutly normal and needed to have requirments to use some "tools" like cars, planes or guns.

Dont get blindsided just because guns are your hobby or because you dont thrust your goverment. We already know and see, that in society are ppl who will hurt others for that or that reasson. Why make it easy for tham?

Over here you need for your gun licence:
Clear criminal record - there are ofc cathegories of records what matters and you also can ask to erase that record (its procedure, not granted),
Health check - we have public heatlh care so everybody have its own doctor.
Prove that you can safely manipulate with gun - written test and practical exams. Its absed on types of licence (collectors, hunting, sporting, proffesional and carry)

And i really dont see why this should be problem. Its almost same requrments as with driving licence.
Click to expand...

Under our form of government there is a definite legal distinction between rights and privileges. You are right, I don't trust government, only fools believe the government is benevolent and works for the betterment of society.
Do you know that in Germany you have to pass a test and get permit to own a cat or dog? In England they have speech laws, if you say something the government deems unacceptable you can go to jail? In regards to demonstrating the ability to properly handle and use a firearm, what stops the government from setting standards that Jerry Muselik couldn't pass? If you don't know who he is, Google is your friend.
We do have laws here preventing criminals from possessing and owning firearms, just don't get enforced all that vigorously. Do you know what a criminal is? A person that violates the law. Does that law stop the determined evil doer from obtaining a firearm, even in your country?
It's pretty sad, Europeans for centuries have been governed by Kings and Queens, dictators and socialist governments that have restricted individual rights for so long that they have no idea of real freedom.
 
[/QUOTE] aaaaa said: ↑
Guess I don't mind the background check but suspect some agency is keeping records of every time I get a background check, and why. That I don't like.[/QUOTE]

mope540 said:
It's amazing that so many people have fallen for the nonsense that background checks will protect everyone...meanwhile the real reason for background checks totally escapes them.
Click to expand...

Well, i didn't actually say I thought they would protect everyone, because they don't. Its just that I didn't mind when I bought my gun that the process was relatively painless and quick (here in Michigan anyway), but I do not like if (probably are, since it is government related) an agency is tracking my gun purchases.
 
jonnyc said:
No thank you. After living for 62 years, and working in two gun shops, I know there are plenty of "people" who should not possess firearms. If you're not willing to wait a few minutes to ensure that dangerous loonies don't get legal guns, get an FFL.
Click to expand...


My last 2 "instant" checks took 2 and 3 hours.
 
Idahou said:
Would you allow just everybody to drive car without proving that he/she is capable of doing so? Or piloting plane? Or practice medicene? Regulations are needed in society

Its not question of pro-gun or anti-gun, but question of common sence and fact that your dad didnt get gun isnt changing it. It sounds little bit offensive, but i dont mean it that way.
Click to expand...

Rights and Privledges are 2 different animals.
 
If the alleged purpose of the background check is to determine whether or not the buyer is a prohibited person, then WHY is the make, model, caliber, and S/N of the gun being transferred also recorded?

IMO, background checks should be about the person only, not the gun.
 
Idahou said:
No it isnt.
Its absolutly normal and needed to have requirments to use some "tools" like cars, planes or guns.

Dont get blindsided just because guns are your hobby or because you dont thrust your goverment. We already know and see, that in society are ppl who will hurt others for that or that reasson. Why make it easy for tham?

Over here you need for your gun licence:
Clear criminal record - there are ofc cathegories of records what matters and you also can ask to erase that record (its procedure, not granted),
Health check - we have public heatlh care so everybody have its own doctor.
Prove that you can safely manipulate with gun - written test and practical exams. Its absed on types of licence (collectors, hunting, sporting, proffesional and carry)

And i really dont see why this should be problem. Its almost same requrments as with driving licence.
Click to expand...

Health check? What does that have to do with owning a gun? Besides I don't want anyone telling me I have to go see a doctor.
 
I view the nics check as more of an inconvenience than an infringement . I don't think it works at all as advertised in preventing any crimes .

I think a bigger obstacle is that politicians always want to be seen as "doing something" , even when that "something" has no real effect .

A common denominator in the event of mass shootings has been psychotropic drugs , and shifting away from institutionalizing mentally unwell people . As we have seen the last couple of years , big pharma has deep pockets , and I believe in an effort to protect themselves from blame and legal repercussion , a willingness to immediately attack the firearms community and keep heat off of themselves . Witness immediately after any tragedy the media and politicians who are reading from the same script , the same talking points . Someone put that script in front of them , and that takes money .

I don't know , and someone with an FFL could answer this , but do these checks ever come back in flat out denial? or just a delay then denial ? Is there ever a case where an ineligible buyer has been arrested at a gun store for attempting to make an illegal purchase ?

Just some of my concerns .
 
People that would fail background checks get guns anyway. There are just too many guns out there. So, I don't believe that objectively the background check system has much effect on crime.

However, subjectively, background checks might be useful. They give the impression that something is being done about an undeniable problem. And, if "something" is being done, that reduces the pressure to do something else even worse (like banning guns). (Which, BTW, also wouldn't work.)
 
Rights come with responsibilities. None of our constitutional rights are absolute. They can and should be revoked for certain people for certain crimes. And that has been true since the Bill of Rights was signed. Some people have proven they are not responsible and should never be allowed to touch a gun. It's not perfect, but I don't have a problem with some sort of method to sort out the good from the bad. You have to get a background check anymore to be hired at virtually decent job.
 
Idahou said:
Would you allow just everybody to drive car without proving that he/she is capable of doing so? Or piloting plane? Or practice medicene? Regulations are needed in society
Click to expand...

I'll bite. First off I think people SHOULD be able to drive a car without a license. It's so easy to get them and so many people drive without or on suspended licenses that I don't think getting rid of them entirely would have any appreciable effect on road safety. If you live anywhere in the US outside a select few large metro areas you NEED a car to get around. Why not make driving a right? It could still be a right revoked if it's abused, just like the RTKBA.

Second, you CAN fly without a pilots license, if the aircraft weighs less than 254 lbs empty and you fly during the day.

Practicing medicine is getting too far into the weeds for me to comment on with any appreciable point.

The nation was just fine before the 1968 gun control act. The streets weren't running with blood. You could mail-order a 20mm anti tank cannon and have it delivered to your door, and yet nobody committed crimes with them. The entire FFL system is superfluous and serves no purpose other than as an obstacle for the law abiding to purchase and trade firearms.

Don't even get me started on the 1934 NFA.
 
I'm conflicted.

It's much harder for me to buy a firearm without doing a background check. Which means it's also harder for prohibited individuals. So I think BGCs do make it harder from prohibited people to attain firearms. And certainly harder for them to get the particular kind of firearm they want, because it may simply not be available through black market sources.

On the other hand, they often do seem to manage to get them. And I'm not sure that can be avoided without much stricter regulation than we have.

I'd be fine with getting rid of background checks, if we could also keep prohibited people locked away from society until such time as they no longer posed a threat. But getting rid of BGCs tomorrow, would probably result in a steep and violent learning curve for society, about the kinds of people that should not have access to all the rest of us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Would Universal Background Checks be acceptable if no firearm information was required?
2 3 4 5
Replies
106
Views
6K
GEM
G
H
  • Locked
background check question
Replies
18
Views
1K
Sam1911
S
A
  • Locked
Gun club background checks?
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
5K
CoalTrain49
CoalTrain49
tuj
  • Locked
selling a gun - any feelings of responsibility?
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
170
Views
6K
Al Thompson
A
D
  • Locked
Coburn Amendment: Sane Universal Background Checks
Replies
24
Views
2K
joeschmoe
J
Back
Top