Are background checks necessary?

Status
Not open for further replies.
There should be no need for background checks; the folks such checks are designed to identify should not be free to show up at the gun store.

If we keep criminals in prison, they will not be able to own guns. If they have done their time and are released, yet we still don't trust them...why do we release them?

If someone is mentally incapable of being responsible, that person should be institutionalized and therefore unable to own a gun.

If we don't want such people to have access to guns, why do we have them mixing with law-abiding, responsible society?
 
The idea of universal background checks is something that, ideally, should be discussed. There are reasonable and non-burdensome ways of doing this, such as opening up the NICS (free) to non-licensed sellers. It could be made voluntary, with the incentive being protection from civil liability if the gun is later misused. But, this sort of constructive conversation cannot take place in an overheated atmosphere in which the antigunners see background checks as a disguised way to shut down the private market, and a step toward the total elimination of guns. The fact is, as much as the antis like to babble about "reasonable" laws and a "national conversation," they're not dealing in good faith. There's no point in "negotiating" with such people.
 
@splattergun....

and you think that you would gain "safety" by increasing the liberty and have gun shops sell guns "no questions asked" with no background check? interesting.

I assume you also support the right of felons to vote and are against any voter I.D. laws?
 
texasgun: Your comments lead me to believe that you are not what you appear to be. People without a legitimate argument usually jump immediately to a straw man. Voter ID laws have nothing in common with a background check to exercise a Constitutional right.
 
texasgun said:
and you think that you would gain "safety" by increasing the liberty and have gun shops sell guns "no questions asked" with no background check?
Click to expand...

You mean like they did in 1998 before the background checks? I've been buying guns since the early 1970's and I don't see where it has made any difference at all.
 
Buying a gun vs. voting...

If a person is in the US illegally, he or she can do neither. So a requirement that said person demonstrate his legal presence by presenting a state issued photo ID should be normalized for both.
 
Ever since buying his first gun through a background check(S&W 442) my uncle has gotten harassed and searched every time he crosses the border into and out of Canada to see my aunt's family. He was never given any trouble prior to that and now it happens every single time.
 
rbernie says, "And that is the great unspoken truth - background checks, for all their vaunted 'common sense' restrictions, have had NO discernible effect on crime."
___________________________________________________

One of the best ways to prevent criminals from getting guns is to keep them locked up in a safe when not in use, not left in a closet, or your underwear drawer. Of course, I've read quite a few posts on this site where some of you guys seem to think that that is an infringement on your rights, too. A good safe is not cheap, however, but they are effective, especially since most guns used in crimes are stolen.
 
We have background checks. but let me start at the begining;

Before one can get a license for a firearm we have to undergo a competency test which is both theoretical and pratical examination on the weapon that you are seeking a competency rating of. You will need to know and understand the laws pertaining to firearm use and safekeeping. You also need to be able to name the various parts of the firearm and will need to understand the safe use of the weapon at home and on the range. This is all good as the course is not too intensive but comprehensive enough to leave you with an idea of what is going for what. Even as a qualified military weapons instructor (some years back) I was required to undergo the full test.

Once you have done that you then make application for your competency certificate from the state. At this point your fiingerprints will be taken and a background check will be run. They will search for criminal activity and also interview people who know you, they interviewed my wife and others. Assuming all goes well you will get your competency certificate which now allows you to seek out a firearm.

Once you have your firearm and have paid a deposit for it (you may NOT) remove it from the store until you produce a valid license. You then have to apply for a license for the particular firearm and motivate why you need said firearm. Agian you go through a board that sits and decides your fate. The entire process from competance to licence can take over two months. Part of this process will also involve inspection of your home to ensure that you have an approved safe bolted to the floor in an approved manner. You may not own a forearm if you cannot lock it up.

A private sale ....... here you will pay the seller in full and will need to get the legal owner to take the firearm to the dealer (you may not be found in possession of an unlicensed firearm) or if the seller is not in a rush for the cash (seldom the case) he can hold on to it for you (now he has your cash and the firearm) so most elect to have the firearm taken to a dealer. The dealer will generally charge you a nominal amount for the storage of the firearm until your license is approved.

But herein lies the rub. More police service weapons are stolen than those in private use. Some police weapons are sold by the police to criminal elements. About 3 months ago 27 000 police failed their competancy exam without any ensuing confiscation of their service weapons. Joe public would have been in real trouble if it was him and would have been arrested.

With regard to the competency exams, many of these examinaers are now only interested in the profit and will issue certificates for those who are not sufficiently competant.

So the law is most restrictive with regard to the public but more lenient when it comes to law enforcement which makes a mockery of the entire matter.

The criminal element I believe DO NOT seek normal channels for getting firearms, they have their own channels. They do not need a traceable weapon so background checks do not catch them but some poor bugger who got caught smoking pot in college.

The laws here are draconian and it would appear as if your government are planning the same. Here it is the systematic disarming of the public while little effort is expended on getting rid of the real problem, guns in criminals hands (that's the difficult part), it is much easier to control law abiding citizens.

I have no problem with background checks, they may stop the one or two percent of people who would terrorise partners with them while drunk or a little unstable, this is a good thing but is not the root of the problem.

PS: If my child took my firearm and shot someone I WOULD BE LIABLE for prosecution. It is the same in the US?
 
It is true that background checks only encumber the law abiding. The premise of "prohibited persons" is also a legal obfuscation IMO. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". If the government is to create a definition of individuals that no longer posses this right, they must be defined as something other than a person. The right itself is a natural right, it is not granted by the constitution, the constitution merely prohibits government from infringing any person's right to own armaments. There are no exceptions for felons or the mentally unstable. We should not allow government to prohibit these people access to arms, for it states clearly in our bill of rights that this shall not be done. Here's the reason: it is extremely easy to become a felon, or to be considered mentally unfit. Consider the people in charge of deciding who is a felon. Consider the people who decide who is mentally unfit. Rather than having a protected natural right, you now are asking permission from these people. It is then no longer a right. You must meet their standard of being a "law abiding person" or be "mentally competent". It takes no imagination to see how these definitions can be abused to enact disarmament, it only takes a look through history to realize how it has already been done. Registration and background checks are a soft infringement that is tolerated because it is only the precursor to total disarmament,the disarmament of people we find unsavory and dangerous. Someday they may find you to be unsavory and dangerous, but it should not, and does not negate your natural rights.
 
@Steelhorserider

"Voter ID laws have nothing in common with a background check to exercise a Constitutional right."

mmmh... last time I checked the right to vote is also a constitutional right.
Don't get me wrong... I'm all for voter I.D. because there is a risk of voter fraud. But saying "no background checks for guns!" and then requiring a voter I.D. for the right to vote doesn't add up.

I mean we can all live here in our little bubble and :cuss: about the background checks ... but most Americans would not be comfortable with having guns sold with no questions asked. And please let's not come with "oooh... back in the 70s and 80s we had no checks" ... we all know what violent crime was back then and what is it now....
 
Someday they may find you to be unsavory and dangerous, but it should not, and does not negate your natural rights.
Click to expand...

You decide to lose your natural rights when you rob the corner gas station, beat your spouse into the hospital or any number of wrongful acts against other people with natural rights who did not ask to be victimized. You do the crime you accept losing all of your natural rights. You decide for yourself.
 
You decide to lose your natural rights when you rob the corner gas station, beat your spouse into the hospital or any number of wrongful acts against other people with natural rights who did not ask to be victimized. You do the crime you accept losing all of your natural rights. You decide for yourself.
Click to expand...

I could agree with this sentiment if all felonies were limited to malum in se, or to crime that actually has a victim. However, the list of victimless conduct that results in felony conviction has been growing steadily. If the govt can define what is a felony, and use that as justification to remove your natural rights, there is nothing to guarantee you will retain those rights, they simply make a part of your lifestyle a felony, forcing you to either capitulate or disarm, which negates the purpose of the right to begin with.
 
Here's an expansion on my question. Are there any regulations other than background checks you are comfortable with?
 
I would not support the requirement for background checks for private sales. The government is regulating the behavior of the Federally licensed FFL dealers. I don't think we should hand them the right to regulate me as and individual.
 
texasgun said:
mmmh... last time I checked the right to vote is also a constitutional right.
Click to expand...
Well, kind of...

The "right to vote" isn't explicity stated anywhere in the Constitution. It only gets brought up explicitly in amendments added far, far, later.
 
I'm against any gun regulation or restriction. They can disguise it however they want, waiting periods or cc permits, or 4473's or Bans. I long for the days (I've heard about) where I could go into a hardware store and buy a tommy gun. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I don't think the government needs to know what I choose to buy unless I hurt someone or infringe upon them with it.
 
How about this. (Not saying I support the idea nor that further restriction is inevitable.) What if the law protecting 4473 information was strengthened, to put solid, black and white protection against it being used as de-facto registration? "You get your background check, we get our privacy."
 
"If someone is mentally incapable of being responsible, that person should be institutionalized "


Granny has to go to the institution because she has advanced Alzheimer's? She can't live at home with her son anymore? That's so sad. :(
 
That is sad. I sometimes think I would rather die.

I resent background checks and I certainly resent the restrictions for CCW permits as I don't think a permit should be necessary.
 
AlexanderA said:
The idea of universal background checks is something that, ideally, should be discussed. There are reasonable and non-burdensome ways of doing this, such as opening up the NICS (free) to non-licensed sellers. It could be made voluntary, with the incentive being protection from civil liability if the gun is later misused. But, this sort of constructive conversation cannot take place in an overheated atmosphere in which the antigunners see background checks as a disguised way to shut down the private market, and a step toward the total elimination of guns. The fact is, as much as the antis like to babble about "reasonable" laws and a "national conversation," they're not dealing in good faith. There's no point in "negotiating" with such people.
Click to expand...

Isnt that a huge entryway into privacy abuse? Anyone selling a gun (basically anyone owning a gun and saying they're selling it) requesting personal information on another citizen? And getting it?
 
Isnt that a huge entryway into privacy abuse? Anyone selling a gun (basically anyone owning a gun and saying they're selling it) requesting personal information on another citizen? And getting it?
Click to expand...

That's a good point. What if it didn't give specifics? What if it just took the information and reported back "denied" or "clean" or whatever.
 
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.
Click to expand...

are you telling me criminals dont "hold up banks and kill people in the process" now...?

thats good to hear, i guess i can leave my carry gun at home because criminals apparently cant buy guns with a background check....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
  • Poll
Universal Background checks
2
Replies
43
Views
1K
rust collector
R
A
  • Locked
CCW Background check vs. Standard check for purchases.
Replies
5
Views
5K
Standing Wolf
S
U
  • Locked
Help w/ Argument Against Background Checks for Private Sale
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
Uncle Richard
U
D
  • Locked
‘Universal Background Checks’ – Absolutely Not
2 3
Replies
72
Views
5K
Robert
Robert
H
  • Locked
background check question
Replies
18
Views
1K
Sam1911
S
Back
Top