Background checks

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

Define "mental health". There are those who argue that an interest in firearms is a mental abberation.

 

[rust collector]

Some of those facilities were pretty sordid, as Kesey wrote about in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. I surveyed the facility in Terrell, TX for fallout shelter purposes back in '72. The wailing and the bedding being dried outside stays with one. I see now they charge $630 per day. It was far from perfect, but some folks are happier in an environment free from the concerns of daily living.

 

[AlexanderA]

There used to be confinement for the criminally insane. Not much different from prison, I figure.

That would be after a crime had been committed, there was a criminal trial, and the person was found not guilty by reason of insanity.

This kind of confinement would do nothing to prevent the crime in the first place. (Not a solution to the problem we're currently facing.)

 

[AlexanderA]

The wailing and the bedding being dried outside stays with one.

If a person is constantly drooling and wetting the bed (typical of those being institutionalized back in the day), I doubt that such a person would have it together enough to obtain a gun, plan a mass shooting, and carry it out. No, mass shooters may be severely troubled, but they're at least marginally competent and appear "normal" to those not familiar with them. This is why so many of them have no problem getting guns through the regular FFL channels.

 

[Jim Watson]

That would be after a crime had been committed, there was a criminal trial, and the person was found not guilty by reason of insanity.

This kind of confinement would do nothing to prevent the crime in the first place. (Not a solution to the problem we're currently facing.)

Recidivism is a major problem with management of criminals and nutcases.

Preemptive restriction may well be a treatment worse than the ill.

 

[DustyGmt]

You really want to tug on that rope, kids can't even make it to 6th grade before getting slapped with 4 or 5 different disorders that need "treatment". I'm certainly not denying there are really severe cases where intervention is appropriate, but who's going to make these decisions, yeah.... that's a scary thought.

I imagine most of the people here have had their low points, or times where somebody, a wife, neighbor or someone in your circle said "sheesh, he's been a moody prick lately, somethings up with him", you want red flag inflicted and activated upon you because you have a week where you're bent or have a spell where you're acting like a prick on wheels?

I would encourage you to look up symptoms of what to look for if you suspect mental health issues. It's called being human, irritability, not sleeping well, forgetful, anxiety, feeling down or depressed, not eating well, etc.... sorry guys, this applies to most of us. Now hearing voices and unprovoked violent outbursts might be worth a chat, but I doubt the powers that be will know where to draw the line and pulling the "mental health" thread is a bad talking point, it's just too broad.

Life's a risk, plan accordingly. Teach good values and respect at home and keep a close eye on your kids mental diet, they're getting warped and society in general suffers because of it, and we can thank alot of our parents, politicians, and educators for most of it. I wouldn't look to the last two to solve this or any other problem.

 

[Old Dog]

We do not have a gun problem, we have a mental health problem. The mentally ill should not be loose on the streets.

That ship has sailed.

Not only are the mentally ill loose on the streets, many are also homeless, which is another crisis in itself. Most mental health facilities throughout the country have long been shuttered (and it's pointless, at this point, to assign blame for that), and those mentally ill that are institutionalized are in county jails and state prisons. Government funding for state mental health hospitals is something we won't see again in our lifetime. Hell, we're gonna be lucky to see continued funding for outpatient treatment.

I've worked the streets, the jail and for a bit in a prison. I've got an immediate family member that's worked for a long time in "behavioral health."

Out there, it's worse than probably most of you think.

And beyond that, most citizens believe that it IS a gun problem. That genie isn't going back in the bottle, ever.

So for those of you that take the absolutist position that we shouldn't try to restrict even potentially mentally ill persons from owning firearms (however that looks like in your minds), you're simply muddying the waters. At this point, it certainly looks as though "red flag laws" are here to stay, universal background checks will be the law of the land, and HIPAA is out the window for anyone that will ever want to procure a firearm anywhere in the U.S. in the future. Cry about due process all you want, but those that understand the concept are in the minority and won't get a vote. Oh, and even if (by some miracle) there is a "red wave" in the next few general elections, sorry folks, those people aren't gonna reverse what's already happening.

 

[slowr1der]

I was going to be nice and ignore this thread, but frankly I'm tired of listening to people like you spew bs while trying to convince other people who may not know better to take away our rights. I see you've already been called out for some of it on page 3.

Rumor is that it belongs to someone else.

We'll get to this in the 3rd quote.

You guys think about it all wrong. Its not a post about taking liberties away its a post that certain people should not have access to firearms. When they were handing out free money the local gang bangers lined a local chain of gun stores smelling like marijuana and not a single person questioned it because all they were worried about was $. I also overheard a few straw purchases too. No one is trying to strip the 2a but something needs done.

Really? They were? Did you report this to the ATF? Or are you part of the problem by ignoring it? Let's be real here, 99.99% of gun stores would never let this happen. Marijuana is still a federal crime. Question 21 F on the 4473 explains that if you're addicted to marijuana or other illegal drugs you're prohibited from owning a gun. If the FFL knows that you're using marijuana, you're a prohibited person. They aren't going to sell you a gun. If you answer no to this question while you're actually addicted to marijuana, you just committed a felony. Do you really think a gun shop is going to risk losing their FFL and all future gun sales to make a few dollars off of one or two sales? Especially a gun store that's grown big enough to be a chain? Without their FFL they give up their livelihood. I think not.

Question 21 A addresses straw purchases. If anything seems off, or they admit they are making a straw purchase, the FFL will deny the sale right there. If nothing seems suspicious, but the buyer answers question 21 A stating that they aren't the actual the buyer, the sale stops immediately. If the buyer lies on the form, they've again committed a felony. Why didn't you report this to the ATF when you witnessed it? Again, an FFL isn't going to risk losing their whole business over making a few bucks on one or two sales. Do you understand how little markup there is on a single firearm sale? This is an area where most FFL's are overly cautious, because the ATF is very strict about this.

If a buyer buys more than two handguns in a 5 day period, the FFL also reports this to the ATF.

I would put $ that kid obtained said shotgun from a gun show because he had a bunch of Russian slugs to go with it and just talking to him you could tell he was way off in left field and even looking at him you could tell he was waiting to snap. I’ve never seen so much hatred in someones face before.

Didn't you say above that the "rumor is that it belongs to someone else"? Now you've changed your mind and it must have come from a gun show? Just be honest, you're making **** up again. You have no idea where the gun came from. You don't know if he bought it from an FFL after passing a background check, bought it in a private sale, or stole it from someone. Statistically very very few of these guns used in these crimes were obtained through a private sale.

If you walk in and look like a nutcase it should be delayed at least.

You want FFL's to discriminate against people based solely on their looks? Got it.

What if they make the wrong decision while discriminating against people? Do you also want the store clerk to be held be held personally liable when they get sued?

Yes, they will get from bad guys but it seems like its too easy to flip a gun. I see gun sales all the time on Facebook groups by some sketchy individuals. Especially when they are selling guns worth $600-800 for $200 and its yours.

Let's see some screenshots of some of these sales. This shouldn't be a problem since you see them all the time. Right?

I work in the industry, I spend a lot of my personal time on forums, gun groups on Facebook, etc. First, gun sales are prohibited on Facebook. They often get reported immediately, and if the moderators of the groups see it before it gets reported, it gets removed immediately. No moderator wants to see their group get locked. Now, lets say that one slips through the cracks, and someone does manage to have an ad stay up, which is extremely rare. I've literally seen this maybe once over many years few years and it didn't directly mention a firearm or a price. It still came down quickly. You reported these ads to Facebook right? It has a button to do so. Or are you enabling prohibited sales again?

Let's get past the part about it not being allowed on Facebook. The used gun industry is insane. It's been like this since I've been interested in firearms. The large majority of the time used gun prices are very close to new. I bet I see great deals less than 1% of the time, and I've never seen a $600-800 gun get posted for $200. If they posted a $800 gun for $500 on a gun forum, it would probably sell in minutes. Why would they sell it for $200? While I can't say it's never happened, because I'm sure there is someone out there somewhere that's scored a deal like that, it's got to be extremely rare. So now you have two extremely rare situations that have to align perfectly. An ad has to make it past the FB filters, make it past being reported by other users and removed, and be listed for a price that almost never would happen, but you see this "all the time"? Just admit it. This is probably another lie that you made up.

Idk. I’m just tired of seeing innocent people getting killed.

Aren't we all. None of us want to see innocent people get killed. Making it more difficult for law abiding citizens to defend themselves against criminals who clearly don't care about the law isn't the answer though.

A guy in a car drove head on and put an innocent 70yo woman in ICU because he wanted to kill himself and drove head on into her and others. Again, not a gun issue its lets not make it so easy for someone with problems to have weapons.

So you're admitting that they don't need a gun to kill people? Why aren't you advocating for background checks for people that own automobiles? Do you want car salesmen to discriminate based on looks when it comes to who is allowed to buy a car too? What about a kitchen knife? Or a fork? Baseball bat? Or any one of the other number of things that people use to kill people.

The point is that something needs done to stop people who have been deemed to have mental health issues from owning a firearm. I see it every day where a guy goes to court and the judge says surrender all firearms. Sir i don’t have any and he takes them on their word. PD then gets a call saying xyz didn’t turn in all the guns he said he had and now he’s threatening to kill his entire family. But, wait a minute he said he only had 1 handgun and it was turned in, come to find out he has 12 guns and also been in and out of mental wards.

Something is done. It's already illegal for them to own firearms if this is the case. Show us some court cases as proof of what you see "every day". Since you see it that often, it should be no problem to find a bunch of examples for us. How about start by posting 10? Can't do that? How about 5?.........

I’m not saying let them know who has what, i am 1000% against that. I’m saying if John Doe gets admitted to a mental hospital or any sort of mental health meds, severe issue, etc. his ability to own guns is gone.

Well, you do realize that the whole point of UBC's is to create a "registration" right? When the FFL logs it in their books, this is exactly what it's doing. It's creating a database that the ATF can use to "trace" firearms. Regardless of what they call it, it's a registration.

Let's get to part two of this. You're saying you don't want people to attempt to get help if they need it out of fear of losing their firearms? This is exactly what will happen. Do you want them to just ignore the help they need and remain out there on the street? You also want people to lose their rights when doctors are getting kick backs for prescribing a certain medication, push it on someone that doesn't need it. Yet you aren't trying to take people's constitutional right away? Do you think we're all idiots?

Just be honest. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Old Dog]

Well, you do realize that the whole point of UBC's is to create a "registration" right? When the FFL logs it in their books, this is exactly what it's doing. It's creating a database that the ATF can use to "trace" firearms. Regardless of what they call it, it's a registration.

Pretty sure every single member of this forum understands that, even the OP to whom you directed your responses.

Once again, that ship has sailed. De facto registration is a done deal, nationwide, See, we got these things called "computers" which create "databases," right?

You're saying you don't want people to attempt to get help if they need it out of fear of losing their firearms? This is exactly what will happen. Do you want them to just ignore the help they need and remain out there on the street? You also want people to lose their rights when doctors are getting kick backs for prescribing a certain medication, push it on someone that doesn't need it. Yet you aren't trying to take people's constitutional right away? Do you think we're all idiots?

We get what the OP was saying. Believe it or not, lots of people that suffer mental illness understand they are having mental issues, and their desire to keep their gun rights isn't the thing keeping them from getting help. It does appear you don't have a clear understanding of how and why doctors prescribe certain medications as well.

Just be honest. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Taking the absolutist position does our side absolutely no good. The OP brings up issues that we -- in our community -- need to be having with each other. Not accepting this means that you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[slowr1der]

I have another question. Did you call the ATF and report yourself for putting an incorrect information in section B on a 4473 and then signing the form stating that you "certify that all of my responses in Section B of this form are still true, correct, and complete."? Or do you think the laws should only apply to the rest of us?

4473 mess up

Drove almost 1.5hrs one way to buy a certain pistol last Saturday and got a call today saying I misspelled my street name. He had me doing the form on a tablet smaller than a piece of paper. I double checked it, the counter guy checked it and had another check it. I get a call just now saying I...

www.thehighroad.org

 

[slowr1der]

We get what the OP was saying. Believe it or not, lots of people that suffer mental illness understand they are having mental issues, and their desire to keep their gun rights isn't the thing keeping them from getting help. It does appear you don't have a clear understanding of how and why doctors prescribe certain medications as well.

I have a pretty clear understanding of how much corruption there is in the medical industry.

It's pretty well documented. Take some time to read up on how the opioid crisis started.

Taking the absolutist position does our side absolutely no good. The OP brings up issues that we -- in our community -- need to be having with each other. Not accepting this means that you have no idea what you're talking about.

There is absolutely zero reason we should listen to the OP spew this bs without calling him out for it. If he wants to come back with actual facts, then we can have a rational conversation.
.

 

[Old Dog]

I have a pretty clear understanding of how much corruption there is in the medical industry.

It's pretty well documented. Take some time to read up on how the opioid crisis started.

Haven't read all the posts in the thread (including my post previous to the one you quoted), eh? I have firsthand knowledge of all this, immediate family in big pharma and medicine as well as time on the street and in institutions.

No need to patronize. And you clearly didn't take my point regarding taking an absolutist position on the question of background checks.

You are the one spouting "BS" such as this:

Making it more difficult for law abiding citizens to defend themselves against criminals who clearly don't care about the law isn't the answer though.

 

[slowr1der]

You are the one spouting "BS" such as this:

Explain how it's "BS"? I'll wait...

We have UBC's in our state, and it's become a major pain to buy a used gun from another individual. It's somewhat hard to even find an FFL that will even do transfers for private sales. Many dealers don't want the hassle. Then when you do find one, they are often open the same hours that most people work. To make a deal happen you often have to take off of work, drive to a dealer that will do the transfer, hope you don't get delayed, etc. In addition to the increased cost this adds.

This is all hypothetical, but I'd be very shocked if it hasn't happened. What happens when someone needs a gun to protect themselves against an abuser? You do realize that a lot of people don't have a job where they can just leave mid-day to go do a gun transfer right? You also realize that even scraping together the money to buy a gun is hard for some people right? That's without adding additional transfer fees on top of it. Now they've lost the ability to be able to pick one up in a private party sale after work. Or what about the person that is "delayed" which happens very often? Now they have to hope their abuser decides to take the night off since they won't be able to defend themselves while they wait for their "delay" to come back.

If the government really cared about it being anything other than a registration, they'd create a easy way for individuals to quickly check on their own without entering the gun information to make sure the buyer wasn't a prohibited person. The fact that they don't do this tells you all that you need to know.

 

[Heir Kommt Die Sonne]

My entire thing is limit people with mental health concerns, not every day people.

And that already is the law. If you've been involuntarily submitted to a mental health facility, the FBI is notified that you've been deemed as a mental defective. Your right to own firearms is already gone.

If said person was still able to do so then either the facility they went to didn't report it or they must've acquired it from elsewhere.
The way you describe the person something was apparently wrong with them, I don't believe any sane gun dealer would've sold to such a person. You paint it as though gun shop people are 'shake hands and cash' when it comes to discretion on buyers but this is only in the movies.

The call for more limits may be necessary, but its such a slippery slope. We have to be careful what we call for, many of which measures we already have anyway just not always enforced

 

[Old Dog]

Explain how it's "BS"? I'll wait...

We have UBC's in our state, and it's become a major pain to buy a used gun from another individual.

Here's a clue: Those people who desire to keep and bear arms for self-defense, defense of family and home typically already own a firearm (or firearms).

You are simply describing the new reality with regard to the hassle of purchasing firearms in the present day.

Relatively rare are the situations in life in which an individual realizes there is an immediate threat to themselves, and they require a firearm now.

You are also presuming that the sole option for defending oneself against a known threat is a firearm. The firearm should always be the last option.

There is always a bigger picture; it seems we in the RKBA community too often tend to view every problem through our particular lenses, which often results in ignoring much basic reality.

 

[Targa]

No one is trying to strip the 2a but something needs done. If you walk in and look like a nutcase it should be delayed at least. I tell ya some of this omg they gonna take away my rights gets a little old and extreme.

If you can’t see that our 2a rights are under attack as well as our 1st and 4th Amendment rights, then you need to educate yourself. As for the omg they are going to take my rights away, I agree, having them constantly under attack is getting a little old and extreme.

 

[Miami_JBT]

That ship has sailed.

Not only are the mentally ill loose on the streets, many are also homeless, which is another crisis in itself. Most mental health facilities throughout the country have long been shuttered (and it's pointless, at this point, to assign blame for that), and those mentally ill that are institutionalized are in county jails and state prisons. Government funding for state mental health hospitals is something we won't see again in our lifetime. Hell, we're gonna be lucky to see continued funding for outpatient treatment.

I've worked the streets, the jail and for a bit in a prison. I've got an immediate family member that's worked for a long time in "behavioral health."

Out there, it's worse than probably most of you think.

And beyond that, most citizens believe that it IS a gun problem. That genie isn't going back in the bottle, ever.

So for those of you that take the absolutist position that we shouldn't try to restrict even potentially mentally ill persons from owning firearms (however that looks like in your minds), you're simply muddying the waters. At this point, it certainly looks as though "red flag laws" are here to stay, universal background checks will be the law of the land, and HIPAA is out the window for anyone that will ever want to procure a firearm anywhere in the U.S. in the future. Cry about due process all you want, but those that understand the concept are in the minority and won't get a vote. Oh, and even if (by some miracle) there is a "red wave" in the next few general elections, sorry folks, those people aren't gonna reverse what's already happening.

As a veteran cop who's seen the end results of Jimmy Carter's and Ronald Reagan's push to end mental health facilities, I'm well aware of who's to blame and the problem on our streets.

Yes, Republican Lawmakers will not go and automatically become pro-gun. But that only happens if the people don't hold those Republicans' feet to the fire and make them keep their word. Your attitude is defeatist and that contributes to the situation of Republican Lawmakers being anti-gun.

Red Flag laws are a failure and don't work. Neither does any other gun control policy.

What does work is keeping criminals and the mentally ill off the streets.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

Why not background checks for alcohol, MJ. Tie it to the DL, find a hit, a DUI-No Sale.
50-60 years ago we had the gunsm didn't have the drugs.
Ronald M. George was a Chief Justice of California, as a Superior Court judge he presided over the trial of Angelo Bono, one of the Hillside Stranglers. When someone suggested to him that Bono and his co-strangler Bianchi were clearly insane George replied:
"Why should we label someone as "insane" when they refuse to live by society's rules ?"

 

[Miami_JBT]

Here's a clue: Those people who desire to keep and bear arms for self-defense, defense of family and home typically already own a firearm (or firearms).

You are simply describing the new reality with regard to the hassle of purchasing firearms in the present day.

Relatively rare are the situations in life in which an individual realizes there is an immediate threat to themselves, and they require a firearm now.

You are also presuming that the sole option for defending oneself against a known threat is a firearm. The firearm should always be the last option.

There is always a bigger picture; it seems we in the RKBA community too often tend to view every problem through our particular lenses, which often results in ignoring much basic reality.

Largest growing segment of gun owners are women and minorities. They grew up in households without a firearm and as adults are buying guns for the first time in record numbers.

Your idea that all gun owners are already gun owners is a fallacy. A lot of younger people, women, and minorities are first time gun owners and a number of then have specifically purchased their first firearm after a tragic event because they specifically saw the failures in the system. They witnessed police don't stop things and criminals don't get locked up.

A lot of mothers purchased their first firearm after the failure of Uvalde, TX just as a number of American Jews purchased their first firearm after the attacks in Israel. And it continues like that. Heck, in Puerto Rico, after they went from May Issue to Shall Issue, there was a dramatic increase in purchases. The majority were women aged from 21-45. Working aged women who have been the victims of sexual assaults burglaries, and muggings. Women who are small business owners and working-age business professionals.

These folks aren't buying 'em to go plinking on the back forty. No, they're buying them to defend themselves since they've come to understand on a personal level of what Warren v. District of Columbia truly means for the general public and their individual safety.

 

[230RN]

I wish I could remember that full quote about "A population where everybody has guns has to be pretty peaceful since affronts might be met with strong resistance," by some writer whose name I forgot.

But of course, that's just counter-propaganda. And puny counter-propaganda, at that.

Sounds absolutist, but then again, the anti-gunners are also absolutist in the long run, it's just that most people don't see it that way since their approach is by little steps at a time. Like frogs in the pot of warm water. Comfy at first.

Steps: NFA, GCA, Regulatory excesses, red flag laws, "State's Rights" objections, tightening background checks...

Terry, 230RN

 

[PzGren]

With rights comes responsibility. Do a crime, especially with a gun, and be held responsible, in other words; face a severe and swift punishment. Public hangings have always been a popular crowd pleaser and good reminder for criminals to keep on the right path.

 

[kwguy]

And no one is advocating stopping the sale of alcoholic beverages today. Oh, wait, the nation gave into a bunch of nosey old bidddies back in the early 20th century and did that very thing, banning booze. How did that work out? It DID NOT. All it did was create a new class of criminal and many deaths among gangsters fighting over territory to sell their bootleg whiskey which John Q Public was eager to keep on buying. I wonder how many innocents last their lives in these shootings as collateral damage just because they wanted something the government had made illegal for no reason except to please a bunch of harpies that had no understanding of human nature.

No other thing gets blamed for unneeded deaths except firearms. Too d--- many people want to tell us how to live and when they eventually get rid of our firearms they will be able to do so and the general public will have to accept it as they have given up their means to rebel. Welcome back to the days of King George. The only difference will be that the colonists had firearms to fight back and we won't.

And ironically, Prohibition was the catalyst for the federal gun control laws.

 

[MEHavey]

kwguy - Oh, wait, the nation gave into a bunch of nosey old [fill in the blank] . . .

and don't ever think it can't happen again....
(in fact the Gentle Reader is already being led down the garden path)

 

[Miami_JBT]

And ironically, Prohibition was the catalyst for the federal gun control laws.

When prohibition ended in 1933, all those soon to be unemployed beverage agents needed a new mission to stay on the payroll. Uncle Sam came to their rescue and created the 1934 National Firearms Act and gave them all new reasons to be collecting a paycheck via the taxpayer.

 

[230RN]

And ironically, Prohibition was the catalyst for the federal gun control laws.

The Valentine's Day Massacre has also been given "credit" for initiating GCA 34 since it was so dramatic. My take on it is people looked at it the wrong way. They should have seen it as seven or eight crooks being removed from society by the Thompson Method without the costs of trials and imprisonment.

Terry, 230RN