Are background checks necessary?

[larryh1108]

Can you tell me of a state where:
convicted felons (apart from those convicted of certain vehicular offenses) are barred from owning or operating motor vehicles?
a background check (for non-vehicular offenses) is required prior to the purchase or operation of a motor vehicle?
driver's licenses from ANY other state are NOT valid?

My statement was in response to others saying idiots drive and we do nothing to stop them. We do have regulations to operate a motor vehicle in every state. A habitual drunk driver (convicted) has no more right to drive than a convicted, violent felon has to own a firearm. It's common sense.

Regulations do not stop everybody from stepping over the line but it keeps a moral society in check. In every walk of life, there are those who feel the laws, regulations and/or common decency do not apply to them.

 

[9MMare]

Actually, you have a background check run on you each and every time you buy a new or used car, it is a federal requirement for all dealerships that has been in effect for years now.

Jim

Jim

Really? I just bought one last week, nice used 4WD. (Well, it's been a week and it's still working Fingers crossed!)

Dont they have to ask your permission to run a background check? Or was it hidden in the tons of paperwork I did fill out?

Just curious. Not a big deal as I had to have a very extensive background check for my employer but they had to get permission from me to do it.

 

[larryh1108]

Also, as far as regulations and restrictions not working, it's pretty hard to measure things that have not happened because someone did not get to buy that gun, get that license, etc. All we do have is a database of criminals with illegal firearms and drivers who get pulled over with no license, etc. If the Webster shooter didn't get the rifles from the neighbor lady (if she never had any, let's say) would he have still shot the firemen or would he have found a different way to do his carnage? Those are questions we never get answers to. The laws in place are all we have to keep society in check. The rest is up to the individuals.

 

[larryh1108]

If the dealer ran a credit check, your name and social security number are run against a known terrorist database. It happens whether you are aware of it or not. I'd bet that it is mentioned in the fine print you sign giving consent to have a credit check run. Now, if you pay with cash or certified funds there is no credit check. However, if you paid more than $10,000 in cash there is a federal form that is filled out. Your bank also has records if you withdraw any money from your account. If you pay by personal check, a smart dealer runs a credit check to see if you have a history of writing bad checks. It's not as cut-and-dried as you think.

 

[9MMare]

If the dealer ran a credit check, your name and social security number are run against a known terrorist database. It happens whether you are aware of it or not. I'd bet that it is mentioned in the fine print you sign giving consent to have a credit check run. Now, if you pay with cash or certified funds there is no credit check. However, if you paid more than $10,000 in cash there is a federal form that is filled out. Your bank also has records if you withdraw any money from your account. If you pay by personal check, a smart dealer runs a credit check to see if you have a history of writing bad checks. It's not as cut-and-dried as you think.

Thanks and sure, they asked consent for a credit check. That is not the same as a background check, altho it sounds like it covers some of the same info.

Didnt know about the terrorist db thing but it's not surprising. We instituted policies and tracking for that at my work as well.

 

[JohnBT]

All 4 of my grandparents were born in the early 1890s. I remember them talking about how the government decided to make money off people by inventing driver's licenses. It wasn't the 50 cents, it was the principle of charging people for getting around. They didn't have driver's licenses for riding horses.

http://amhistory.si.edu/onthemove/exhibition/exhibition_8_2.html

"In 1901, New York became the first state to register automobiles; by 1918 all states required license plates. States were slower to require licenses for drivers. Only 39 states issued them by 1935 and few required a test, despite widespread concern about incompetent drivers. "

 

[BobTheTomato]

I'm all for background checks......once they start doing them for the cartel members they ship arms to via fast and furious or the variety of third world countries we send military aid to.....

 

[tomrkba]

Background checks were not necessary at the Federal level for a long time. I am not sure when the various states started doing so.

Frankly, I believe they don't really do much other than inform the government of who has guns.

We know the government is not honoring the 90 limitation (or is it less now) on maintaining the data. We know this because a north east police chief made reference to querying the Feds for data on a gun that had been sold years before.

 

[jdh]

Guilty until proven innocent is not one of the founding principles of this nation.

 

[Kim]

I am against background checks. Like all laws new generations are born and just accept these restrictions and many people forget things. When this all started Clinton tried to keep the records for ever. Then he tried 120 days for awhile. We fought him for years. Then under George Bush the records are destroyed in 24 hours. There was much outrage by the MSM etc. about the evil NRA etc. I wonder why they wanted the NICS records kept???? They claimed it was to be able to run the program. They were lying. People forget the young never knew etc.

 

[Kim]

I might add Clinton even stated the NICS background checks would not prevent those who should not have guns from not having them. THEY never planned on prosecuting those who illegally tried to buy guns. That is why the number above is very,very low. The NRA pointed this out but the MSM did not care or listen.

 

[Deus Machina]

Obviously it doesn't stop them, but I'm against convicted felons having legal access to firearms.

As I see it, there are three ways to prevent that. 1) Actually rehabilitate them. 2) Keep them in prison until they are fit to rejoin society at full capacity. 3) Perform background checks.

Obviously the prisons aren't doing 1, and the courts aren't doing 2. So we just keep the background checks and they get to tack on an illegal possession charge to their next offense.

 

[9MMare]

I am against background checks. Like all laws new generations are born and just accept these restrictions and many people forget things. When this all started Clinton tried to keep the records for ever. Then he tried 120 days for awhile. We fought him for years. Then under George Bush the records are destroyed in 24 hours. There was much outrage by the MSM etc. about the evil NRA etc. I wonder why they wanted the NICS records kept???? They claimed it was to be able to run the program. They were lying. People forget the young never knew etc.

Really? Under any administration, they were destroyed in 24 hours?

As I wrote earlier, I have a hard time believing that.

 

[gc70]

Are background checks necessary?

Maybe ... if the system really prevented the wrong people from getting guns and punished them for trying to do so.

It is a federal felony under 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A) to provide false information on a 4473. Since ATF specifically instructs FFLs to "not initiate a NICS check" for a 4473 with disqualifying answers, every valid NICS denial involves a violation of that law.

Over two-thirds of the denials in NICS' entire history have involved felon or fugitive status. That means there have been roughly two-thirds of a million denials to known serious criminals that involved another probable felony violation of federal law. But from 1998-2010, there were only 2,601 cases filed by the DoJ under 18 U.S.C. § 924(a). Think about that: at most, DoJ only prosecutes 4/10s of 1% of felon/fugitive denials that have clear evidence of a felony violation of federal law in the form of a 4473.

NICS issued 3,166 retrieval referrals to ATF in 2011 for prohibited persons in possession of a firearm. Those are transactions that NICS did not stop, but it was subsequently discovered that the purchaser was a prohibited person. I cannot find any data on how many of those guns were actually picked up or whether the "prohibited persons in possession" were charged.

If NICS was more than a "sorry, not this time, but try again" program for prohibited persons, I might see some necessity. At it operates now, NICS is theater to make the masses feel better.

 

[Isaac-1]

First I doubt background checks stop many / any determined people from getting a gun, having said that I think they could be a good idea to try to keep dangerous people from purchasing a gun. I personally would prefer a wide spread pre-approval screening, like the organ donation status listed on drivers licenses, just a simple check field that says at the time this license was issued this person had no known disqualifers for gun ownership, etc. This could certainly help those doing FTF sales to sleep better at night if nothing else.

Of course the big downside to background checks is who decides what will disquallify a person, this is particularly disturbing when you look at some of the questions on the concealed permit or firearms ownership applications around the country:

Ever been divorced, must show paperwork to prove you did not have a restraining order sworn out against you

Did your doctor EVER give you medication used to treat a mental condition, with the way that stuff is handed out like candy I have to wonder what percentage of the population has not been given it at some point in their lives. Having trouble sleeping, take this pill that is used to treat some anxiety disorder....

Ever spent a night in jail .......

Ever been CHARGED with a crime ......

I wonder what percentage of the population can really say that they would not have to check yes to at least one potential disqualifer. With the way things are going I could see a man having to get a permission letter from his ex-wife who he split up with in a relatively civil divorce 20 years earlier just to buy a gun.

 

[M-Cameron]

Obviously it doesn't stop them, but I'm against convicted felons having legal access to firearms.

As I see it, there are three ways to prevent that. 1) Actually rehabilitate them. 2) Keep them in prison until they are fit to rejoin society at full capacity. 3) Perform background checks.

Obviously the prisons aren't doing 1, and the courts aren't doing 2. So we just keep the background checks and they get to tack on an illegal possession charge to their next offense.

all while fueling the illegal arms trade....


its the same thing with any prohibited item.....look at marijuana, would you rather people buy it from a licensed pharmacist or the mexican drug cartel?

same applies to guns, i know ide rather have the local gun store making money over the local gangs.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

We have allowed our eyes to be removed from the target here. Owning a weapon to protect myself from tyrants is a Constitutional Right, driving, buying vehicles, or donating organs are NOT even named in the Constitution let alone named as a right. If they were I am pretty sure the founders would have said you have the RIGHT to sell your own organs to the highest bidder instead of being forced to give them to the medical industry.

 

[michaelbsc]

Obviously it doesn't stop them, but I'm against convicted felons having legal access to firearms....

I think some of our felony restrictions are nuts. Quite frankly I'm not the least afraid of someone convicted of running a brothel. A drug store bandit is a completely different story. But under the current law they're the same.

No, I don't have an easy solution. I'm just observing that the current brush is too broad.

 

[AlexanderA]

As a seller, I don't feel comfortable selling a gun to a person that I don't personally know. When I had my FFL, the onus was taken off me by the Form 4473 procedure, and later by the instant check. Since I gave up my license, I still prefer to go through an FFL in cases like this, for "due diligence" and to cover myself from a liability standpoint.

There should be a means for non-licensees to access the NICS and obtain an approval number for a proposed transaction. Perhaps this should be voluntary, but with the clear knowledge that if the system is not used, there could be severe legal consequences if the gun is later misused. If sellers chose not to use the NICS (if it was available), they would have to have adequate liability insurance, or risk bankruptcy.

 

[22-rimfire]

Regulations do not stop everybody from stepping over the line but it keeps a moral society in check. In every walk of life, there are those who feel the laws, regulations and/or common decency do not apply to them.

When a society looses its sense of morality, there are no barriers (except laws and enforcement) to any behavior. That is where the US is headed.

All you have to look at are illegetimate births and the rates.... transfer that to general perceptions of laws and regulations and you can see where the US is headed. .... socialism and tryranny relative to our present government and certainly relative to the government envisioned by our founding fathers.

 

[JWF III]

Don't have a problem with them on the surface. What I do have a problem with is if they try to force a private sell to go through an FFL. If they do this, the FFL will have to log in the firearm (while you wait). (If he has a potential sell that will profit him more than your transfer, you could be waiting a while.) You will also have to pay sales tax in those states that collect it.

Making any private sell illegal is what really gets on my nerves.

If they open the use of NICS up to everyone (private sellers), I wouldn't have much of a problem with it.

Wyman

 

[texasgun]

sorry... but I do not understand the folks here who simply (and mechanically) reply to ANY background check "shall not be infringed" ... yeah....

I have absolutely ZERO problems with the NICS if it's done TIMELY , CONVENIENTLY, and ACCURATELY .... I know that some folks get chronically "delayed" because of name matches with wanted felons or there have been inaccurate hits - but for the overwhelming majority of us ... they work just fine. A little paperwork, waiting a few min and you are good to go.

To the fella who says that criminals don't go thru the background check and buy their guns illegally .... doooh.... obviously they know that they would FAIL the NICS and instead get their guns on the street. Does this mean we need to make it easier for them and let them walk into a store, pay cash and walk out with a brand new gun in under 15min? I don't think so. At least they have a chance of getting caught when buying guns in the street....

I have zero interest in facilitating the firearms purchases for convicted felons, domestic abusers and mentally defective folks. I don't think the founding fathers had that in their mind either .... heck, you cannot even vote as a felon. So please don't come with the "shall not be infringed". If you cannot vote you should also not be able to have gun.

We could discuss the felony status' of the prohibited from buying guns category... but overall it's not the farmer violating EPA guidelines but the hardcore criminal with a long history.....

 

[B!ngo]

Painfully, I also support some type of background check for the purchase or transfer of all firearms. And, despite arguments to the contrary, it's not precedent. I'm not sure what the ACLU says about FAA private pilot medical checks, but they are reasonably rigorous and investigate the physical and mental health of applicants. The failure rate for new applicants is (I suspect) far higher than the 1.6% stated in the NICS system. Accepting that firearm ownership depends far less on physical health, it does nonetheless provide an example of a significant 'background' check for applicants.
V

 

[splattergun]

I am a law abiding citizens. I resent background checks that assume you are a criminal until proven innocent. Neither do I participate in the airport frisk.

The "if you're not doing anything illegal you have nothing to worry about" argument is the coward's argument. For me, liberty is paramount to safety.

 

[clg114]

I am a law abiding citizen also.However I do not mind backround checks. In fact I believe that they are absolutely necessary.Without them the criminals could walk into a sporting goods store,buy a gun,walk across the street and hold up a bank.Maybe killing someone in the process.Sure, it's sad things have to be this way.But they are,so we have to deal with it and do what we have to do.