Quantcast
  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.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. monotonous_iterancy

    monotonous_iterancy Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2012
    Messages:
    889
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2012
    Messages:
    282
    Location:
    IOWA
    ...Shall not be infringed.

    That is all
     
  3. bk42261

    bk42261 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2010
    Messages:
    207
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2004
    Messages:
    4,615
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    3,592
    Location:
    Peoples Republik of New Jersey
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    491
    Location:
    Northeast TN
    No check, no restriction, no regulation.
    Shall not be infringed.
     
  7. Vaarok

    Vaarok Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,887
    Location:
    Varies
    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.
     
  8. BLACKHAWKNJ

    BLACKHAWKNJ Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2007
    Messages:
    196
    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

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    48,357
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    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 Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Messages:
    16,953
    Location:
    Southern Virginia
    Repeal the GCA of 68
     
  11. rbernie
    • Contributing Member

    rbernie Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    Messages:
    20,607
    Location:
    Norra Texas
    From a prior post on the topic:

    http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost....&postcount=229
     
  12. gbran

    gbran Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,972
    Location:
    california
    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 Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2012
    Messages:
    889
    How would you define prohibited person?
     
  14. gbran

    gbran Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,972
    Location:
    california
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2011
    Messages:
    30
    Location:
    north carolina
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2004
    Messages:
    2,783
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    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 Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2012
    Messages:
    889
    I'll be honest, I'm a little surprised to see some of you concede private sales and transfers.
     
  18. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    In a part of Utah that resembles Tattooine.
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Messages:
    757
    Location:
    Sherrodsville, OH
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2011
    Messages:
    75
    Location:
    Missouri
    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.
     
  21. Sport45

    Sport45 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2004
    Messages:
    2,783
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Why does the 4473 form list anything at all about the firearm? It's supposed to be the buyer that going through the background check. What they're buying shouldn't have anything to do with it.
     
  22. skeptical_in_Ohio

    skeptical_in_Ohio Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    214
    Location:
    Ohio
    I concur with this, but with one proviso (if it's at all possible). It seems that the biggest concern raised with background checks is that it creates a defacto registry. For example, if I buy (as I wish) a nice 1911 and undergo a check, and all sales are required to have a check, then it's pretty clear that I have the 1911 until another transfer is done.

    The question is this - can a background check be run such that the individual is checked and approved to buy a given firearm, but the firearm itself isn't attached to the check?

    From my review of 4473, the arm is recorded on this form along with the buyer/seller. It seems that who bought the arm shouldn't be recorded, so long as whoever it was passed the background check at the time of purchase.

    It seems that a 4473 should be separated between the two parts - one that the buyer passes the check, and two that an arm has been released from somebody to somebody. It seems that there's not a compelling reason to store who actually received the arm so long as this person is the one who passed the check (easily done by checking ID, which is done already). For a person to dispose of an arm, it would have to be either lost/stolen (reported as such and would hence go on a registry as such) or legally transferred (again to somebody who can pass a check).
     
  23. Mousegun

    Mousegun Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    Messages:
    548
    You are forgetting that a gun in the possession of a tactically trained teacher would have done the trick.

    That is the most immediate and useful solution to the problem in the opinion of probably as many people that think mental health care is the complete answer.

    A gun in the hands of a teacher is a solution today. Mental health care, although a viable solution, is a much longer term process.
     
  24. BogBabe

    BogBabe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    227
    Location:
    Southwest Florida
    We never used to have background checks.

    Background checks are ineffective -- they don't stop bad guys from getting guns.

    Background checks impose a lot of cost and require the use of resources for very very little ROI -- resources that could be better used elsewhere.

    Background checks only inconvenience good guys; the bad guys don't undergo background checks when getting their guns.

    Background checks are an imposition on a Constitutionally guaranteed right. They're no more acceptable than would be requiring background checks for journalists before they can journal or for gamers before they can game.

    I say no.
     
  25. Sergei Mosin

    Sergei Mosin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,619
    I have no problem with background checks. Rights of citizenship (including 2A rights) can be lost through due process of law. Having those rights verified through NICS is not an infringement, and it keeps a lot of guns out of the hands of people who do not have the right to own them.

    As for private sales, I've never sold a gun, but I wouldn't sell to anyone who couldn't produce some proof of a current background check. In my state that would mean a purchase permit, carry permit, or FFL. I'm not going to take a chance on transferring a gun to a prohibited person.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page