Background checks

[Weflyfast]

...the RIGHT of the people.....
ALL PEOPLE-
.... unfortunately we have let our morals and our education system go to hell-

Because someone abused a right does not mean I should lose mine-

....and the government of the people is supposed to protect my rights granted by my creator.

 

[Old Dog]

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

What does that look like to you?

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.

Actually, the nationwide movement for deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill began in the mid '60s. Jimmy Carter simply signed the Mental Health Systems Act of 1980 after much study and a Presidental Commission. Pres. Reagan actually had most of this act repealed after he took office.

What's ironic is that some of you are touting civil rights while calling for institutionalizing mentally ill folks -- the original movement came about mainly because of concerns over civil rights (that and the conditions of the institutions at the time).

Your idea that all gun owners are already gun owners is a fallacy

Um, what? Seriously, I get that there are millions of prospective gun owners out there. Please refer to my post #90.

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.

Here's the deal: these folks have gone through the often-absurd processes to legally buy their firearms. And you know what? These folks are mostly good with how the system works and have accepted it, in the belief that the "wrong people" aren't being allowed to buy guns.

Those of us who remember the good ol' days (for many of us, just a couple years ago) do know better, but again, guess what? We are in the minority these days.

I'm not saying we should just sit back, roll over and accept further incursions on our right to keep and bear arms, but to just blindly spout the same old tired tropes about "infringement," while quoting the 2nd, 4th and whatever other amendments we still believe it is not gonna change anything at this point, not while we keep electing the same old clowns to our legislative bodies and the highest office in the land.

And how many here are active in the local school boards? Be more concerned and involved about the curriculum in your local schools than preaching to the choir on the internet. When was the last time anyone here reviewed the textbooks for their childrens' history and social studies classes, elementary/middle school/high school? The only way to win hearts and minds is by education, not burying our heads in the sand and refusing to acknowledge that what we're doing now isn't working.

 

[dogtown tom]

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?

Absolute horsehockey.
Either you are under the delusion that a vast conspiracy amongst FFL's exists where we report every firearm transfer or you don't have the slightest clue about what "gun registration" actually is.

 

[Riomouse911]

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.

In most cases that is already in effect. Same with gun ownership by felons, etc.

Stay safe.

 

[pharmer]

Last couple guns I bought were on "electronic" 4473's. I have no idea where that data is stored or who/ what has access to it. Even some "non-chain" FFL's are using the computerized versions. I bought a Colt's 6920 (that's how long ago it was) at the local WalMart at least 10 years ago and it was online. The manager called me a week later (how he got my cell# is still a mystery) and breathlessly asked me to come back and "fix" the 4473. When I typed "Saint" for my town, the program auto-corrected to "St." Had to go back and override the auto correct and spell it out. Wouldn't want a criminal mind like me slipping through any "loopholes" dontcha'know. Joe

 

[Miami_JBT]

What does that look like to you?



Actually, the nationwide movement for deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill began in the mid '60s. Jimmy Carter simply signed the Mental Health Systems Act of 1980 after much study and a Presidental Commission. Pres. Reagan actually had most of this act repealed after he took office.

What's ironic is that some of you are touting civil rights while calling for institutionalizing mentally ill folks -- the original movement came about mainly because of concerns over civil rights (that and the conditions of the institutions at the time).


Um, what? Seriously, I get that there are millions of prospective gun owners out there. Please refer to my post #90.


Here's the deal: these folks have gone through the often-absurd processes to legally buy their firearms. And you know what? These folks are mostly good with how the system works and have accepted it, in the belief that the "wrong people" aren't being allowed to buy guns.

Those of us who remember the good ol' days (for many of us, just a couple years ago) do know better, but again, guess what? We are in the minority these days.

I'm not saying we should just sit back, roll over and accept further incursions on our right to keep and bear arms, but to just blindly spout the same old tired tropes about "infringement," while quoting the 2nd, 4th and whatever other amendments we still believe it is not gonna change anything at this point, not while we keep electing the same old clowns to our legislative bodies and the highest office in the land.

And how many here are active in the local school boards? Be more concerned and involved about the curriculum in your local schools than preaching to the choir on the internet. When was the last time anyone here reviewed the textbooks for their childrens' history and social studies classes, elementary/middle school/high school? The only way to win hearts and minds is by education, not burying our heads in the sand and refusing to acknowledge that what we're doing now isn't working.

Being that I'm the FL State Director for GOA, an active member of the Republican Party of FL, connected to numerous organizations that are involved with issues like the School Board (Moms for Liberty, etc), and the fact that I have a kid in school right now and I'm an active participant of the School Board meetings.

I'm well aware of what is being done. Furthermore, I'm well aware of this being a hearts and minds campaign and specifically fo that along with civic education of the racist roots of gun control.

 

[AlexanderA]

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.

"An armed society is a polite society." -- the Science Fiction writer Robert Heinlein in the novel "Beyond This Horizon."

The fallacy in this is that it assumes that all the armed members of the society are rational actors. All it would take would be a few crazies to upset the deterrent balance. And of course, human nature being what it is, we can't discount that.

The safest societies would be those where (1) nobody was armed, and (2) everybody was armed. The difference between the two is that, in the case where everybody was armed, the price in blood would be much higher until a state of equilibrium was reached. (That is, until the crazies were eliminated.) Maybe the crazies would never be eliminated, and therein lies the problem.

The condition in which only some people are armed, is the most dangerous of all. (The armed rational actors would be tempted to take advantage of the unarmed.) That's where we currently find ourselves.

 

[AJC1]

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. 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. Calm down tough guy nobody wants your remington 700 30-06 and the half box of ammo that goes with it. 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.

The issue is that mental health is an acute issue, and everyone wants to treat it as a preventable problem. If we take the Maine shooter as an example, how many years was he good before he suddenly wasn't.

 

[Basura Blanca]

Dare i say it i think something needs to be done firearm wise to keep people with severe mental health issues from owning a firearm.

First step is to stop using "mental health issue" as a catch-all when it's anything but. I work in education with kids who have "mental health issues" and the ones you'd probably consider "severe" aren't functional enough to even begin the process to buy a firearm in the first place. It's this sort of thinking that brought us red flag laws. Gun owners and advocates kept ignorantly beating the drum that mental health was the driving force behind mass shootings, and the policy makers listened. Tread these waters carefully.

 

[AlexanderA]

....and the government of the people is supposed to protect my rights granted by my creator.

All rights were wrested from their rulers by the people who preceded us. They were not "granted by the Creator." Think about it -- if rights were "granted by the Creator," they would be guaranteed by the Creator and be self-enforcing. Such is not the case. We must be eternally vigilant to preserve our rights, and not be passively reliant on the "Creator" to do it for us.

 

[kwguy]

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

The “Thompson Method”. I love it!

 

[kwguy]

You could remove all the guns from a society, and have a closed system for humans that looks like an ant farm, and there would still be those that are armed. Either with sticks, stones, spears, hammers, etc, or, with pure physical ability. There will always exist inequities of force that can be used by those with ill intent to do harm to others.

 

[shafter]

I think more and more people are going to start feeling the same way. If these attacks continue then I see a major shift against the second amendment coming through the country. They won't understand that it won't change anything but it will feel like something is being done.

 

[dogtown tom]

Last couple guns I bought were on "electronic" 4473's. I have no idea where that data is stored or who/ what has access to it. Even some "non-chain" FFL's are using the computerized versions. I bought a Colt's 6920 (that's how long ago it was) at the local WalMart at least 10 years ago and it was online. The manager called me a week later (how he got my cell# is still a mystery) and breathlessly asked me to come back and "fix" the 4473. When I typed "Saint" for my town, the program auto-corrected to "St." Had to go back and override the auto correct and spell it out. Wouldn't want a criminal mind like me slipping through any "loopholes" dontcha'know. Joe

Electronic 4473's will be stored by that licensee's system, no different than if he was using paper.

Any FFL that panics over "Saint" vs "St." is a moron and needs to read the instructions on the form.
Same with "Jr" for "Junior", "Dr" for "Drive" or any other commonly used abbreviation.

 

[AlexanderA]

I think more and more people are going to start feeling the same way. If these attacks continue then I see a major shift against the second amendment coming through the country. They won't understand that it won't change anything but it will feel like something is being done.

There is also the contrary viewpoint. One thing that I noticed during the situation in Maine was that many of the people in lockdown, when interviewed, pointed out that they had guns at home with which to protect themselves. Being able to have guns for protection becomes even more important when there are ongoing threats.

 

[230RN]

You could remove all the guns from a society, and have a closed system for humans that looks like an ant farm, and there would still be those that are armed. Either with sticks, stones, spears, hammers, etc, or, with pure physical ability. There will always exist inequities of force that can be used by those with ill intent to do harm to others.

Old saying heard a million times: "G-d created man, but Colt made them equal."

They also used to call some of them Peacemakers.

This is directly related to the question of background checks and the further questions of red flag laws and the like. To paraphrase myself, if they can generate one "red flag" of potential disqualification, they can generate another one. Then another and another until to bring it to the extreme for illustrative purposes, "Why if that dirty rotten scoundrel of a neighbor ran a red light, he ought to be disqualified from gun ownership as a scofflaw and is capable of anything!"

For illustrative purposes, of course.

But.... if they can ban a shoulder arm because it has a pistol grip...

Terry, 230RN

 

[Old Dog]

Either you are under the delusion that a vast conspiracy amongst FFL's exists where we report every firearm transfer or you don't have the slightest clue about what "gun registration" actually is.

Ah, here you go again. Stating that I am either delusional or clueless. Never let it be said that you pass up an opportunity to demean a fellow forum member.

I said nothing about FFLs nor conspiracies and as far as "registration," I used the term "de facto" (look it up), which accurately describes what's going on in many states now. Stop looking at the big picture through your Texas glasses. And if you don't believe full-on gun registration is coming on a national level, you really aren't paying attention.

The other side is not going to stop until there are nationwide UBCs, foisted on us by the federal government -- and quite probably red flag laws on a federal level as well -- and there's little evidence to show that our minority community can stop the trend.

Yes, people want to have guns, and the people desire to be able to continue to acquire them; the issue is that most folks are now convinced that background checks are a good thing and actually work.

 

[DustyGmt]

Someone like the young guy in the OP is a clear case of an immediate danger and had he been seen, "treated" and turned out the front door only to come back the next day and make good on his threat, I would be frustrated because we've seen that situation play out 100+ times where the doctors and LE failed to report or make contact and assess danger/risk.

But to use "mental health" as a catch all term that encapsulates most of our population in some form or another, and if not us directly certainly another family member or member of our household or spouse could be taking medication for depression and/or anxiety, do we really want to go that route? We need a more discriminating metric than just mental health. There needs to be a criteria met, like hearing voices, violent episodes, threats to kill.

 

[wayneinFL]

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.

So what's the point exactly? Just give up and let it slide? I should advocate for universal background checks as what they call "common sense gun safety regulation"?

 

[plainsdrifter]

Just got put on a hold, again. Happens a lot and I have no mental illness, no felonies, no spousal violence yet these people whom ever are sitting there deciding who gets a gun right away or who gets a hold are just stupid.
I've never been denied a gun.
But i get put on a hold half the time.
Then all these other iffy people with mental illness get guns straight away.
They, the ATF or who ever it is can see I got my last gun and other guns THEY approved after a hold yet they still F with me all the time. Jerks.

 

[DustyGmt]

Alot of people don't understand how much grief the passage of UBC's are causing for gun owners and collectors. I live in an area that's sort of rural and gun rich as well as surrounding towns, lots of hunters. Armslist listings and word of mouth local private sales were in abundance and lots of older interesting guns could be stumbled upon, until UBC's got passed. Now nobody wants to bother, armslist seems to be nothing but dealers with the same old stuff and if you do find something used and interesting, you ain't gonna get a deal.

My buddy in Maine tortures me by sending me screenshots of guns that are for sale by individuals close by to him. Tons of opportunities for him to collect nice older guns and get good deals on a handshake. It would be hard to convince me that UBC's are really doing anything besides being an inconvenience to law abiding people.

 

[DustyGmt]

Just got put on a hold, again. Happens a lot and I have no mental illness, no felonies, no spousal violence yet these people whom ever are sitting there deciding who gets a gun right away or who gets a hold are just stupid.
I've never been denied a gun.
But i get put on a hold half the time.
Then all these other iffy people with mental illness get guns straight away.
They, the ATF or who ever it is can see I got my last gun and other guns THEY approved after a hold yet they still F with me all the time. Jerks.

I feel your pain. I've only not been put on a hold one time. What's the point of even going to a gun show if you know you're just gonna get a 3 day hold. Add to that the inconvenience of having to go back to the shop which makes buying anything far from home a heck of alot less appealing.

 

[Old Dog]

So what's the point exactly? Just give up and let it slide? I should advocate for universal background checks as what they call "common sense gun safety regulation"?

No, and no. My point is that we spend far too much time trying to convince our own side that background checks and red flag laws just aren't that effective while I see little evidence that we're doing enough to educate voters.

Witness how the initiative process in some states resulted in a majority of the voters actually approving some pretty draconian gun restrictions while at the same time, in spite of our side's efforts to lobby our state legislators (and overwhelm them with evidence), they continue to draft, and pass, more and more gun control laws.

For every red state that passes a feel-good "Second Amendment Sancturary" bill or some type of bill to limit further restrictions, three or four states are coming up with additional restrictions. Clearly all our preaching to the choir hasn't worked, and our efforts to educate the voters are falling on deaf ears.

What should be more concerning to you all, as I mentioned before, the new gun owners (remember the pandemic gun-buying frenzy by first-time gun buyers?) are jumping through all the hoops to purchase firearms through licensed dealers, and for the most part have accepted the waiting periods, background investigations, redundant documentation and monumental paperwork hassles as normal. Beyond that, polling and surveys reflect that the general public has a favorable opinion of both background checks and red flag laws. Not so much waiting periods, but the fact is, the new wave of gun owners as well as then entire non gun-owning population approves of both these concepts.

One of the problems is that there is truly no way to quantify whether or not, or how many, homicides by firearms and criminal shooting incidents are actually prevented by UBCs and red flag laws. We only find out about the failures, and really, all that does is increase the push for additional restrictions. Every now and then it does come out that some miscreant wanted to shoot his ex-girlfriend, shoot up his former workplace or school, but didn't pass a background check for a purchase and wasn't enough of a criminal to steal a gun, buy a gun on the black market or couldn't figure out how to do a private sale (if legal in the state concerned). This then gets touted by some elected official, administrator, police chief or sheriff as a success of these types of laws.

So, the other side argues that these regulations work (and to the uninitiated, it all sounds perfectly logical), but we have no real way of documenting how they don't work -- without making it look like the laws and regulations need to be increased or tightened up. Finally, even if we could empirically prove that some of these laws actually do more harm than good, our lazy electorate will still believe that "it's doing something," which is better than doing nothing, because face it, Americans cannot understand that most of the time, the best laws are the least number of laws. Our system for too many years has operated on the principle that our leaders have to generate more laws, sign more laws in order to have the appearance of being good leaders.

Even though I detest Neil Young's politics, I remember that song, "Teach Your Children Well." Some things are starting to seem inevitable though, as we've created what has to be the most stupid electorate in the world. How else can one explain how The Squad keeps picking up new members?

 

[shafter]

There is also the contrary viewpoint. One thing that I noticed during the situation in Maine was that many of the people in lockdown, when interviewed, pointed out that they had guns at home with which to protect themselves. Being able to have guns for protection becomes even more important when there are ongoing threats.

That's because there was a manhunt following the shooting. People get really freaked out knowing there's a killer on the loose. I think Mainers would lose their minds about giving up their hunting weapons but it's liberal enough now where everything else may be at risk.

 

[Miami_JBT]

No, and no. My point is that we spend far too much time trying to convince our own side that background checks and red flag laws just aren't that effective while I see little evidence that we're doing enough to educate voters.

Witness how the initiative process in some states resulted in a majority of the voters actually approving some pretty draconian gun restrictions while at the same time, in spite of our side's efforts to lobby our state legislators (and overwhelm them with evidence), they continue to draft, and pass, more and more gun control laws.

For every red state that passes a feel-good "Second Amendment Sancturary" bill or some type of bill to limit further restrictions, three or four states are coming up with additional restrictions. Clearly all our preaching to the choir hasn't worked, and our efforts to educate the voters are falling on deaf ears.

What should be more concerning to you all, as I mentioned before, the new gun owners (remember the pandemic gun-buying frenzy by first-time gun buyers?) are jumping through all the hoops to purchase firearms through licensed dealers, and for the most part have accepted the waiting periods, background investigations, redundant documentation and monumental paperwork hassles as normal. Beyond that, polling and surveys reflect that the general public has a favorable opinion of both background checks and red flag laws. Not so much waiting periods, but the fact is, the new wave of gun owners as well as then entire non gun-owning population approves of both these concepts.

One of the problems is that there is truly no way to quantify whether or not, or how many, homicides by firearms and criminal shooting incidents are actually prevented by UBCs and red flag laws. We only find out about the failures, and really, all that does is increase the push for additional restrictions. Every now and then it does come out that some miscreant wanted to shoot his ex-girlfriend, shoot up his former workplace or school, but didn't pass a background check for a purchase and wasn't enough of a criminal to steal a gun, buy a gun on the black market or couldn't figure out how to do a private sale (if legal in the state concerned). This then gets touted by some elected official, administrator, police chief or sheriff as a success of these types of laws.

So, the other side argues that these regulations work (and to the uninitiated, it all sounds perfectly logical), but we have no real way of documenting how they don't work -- without making it look like the laws and regulations need to be increased or tightened up. Finally, even if we could empirically prove that some of these laws actually do more harm than good, our lazy electorate will still believe that "it's doing something," which is better than doing nothing, because face it, Americans cannot understand that most of the time, the best laws are the least number of laws. Our system for too many years has operated on the principle that our leaders have to generate more laws, sign more laws in order to have the appearance of being good leaders.

Even though I detest Neil Young's politics, I remember that song, "Teach Your Children Well." Some things are starting to seem inevitable though, as we've created what has to be the most stupid electorate in the world. How else can one explain how The Squad keeps picking up new members?

What's this "we" you speak of? I spend months on end specifically educating people of their civil rights and these aren't gun owning people too by the way. I teach them about Waston v. Stone and Norman v. State in Florida. I teach them about how Southerners after the Union pullout in 1876 rewrote the state constitution to disarm blacks. How gun control across the US was used to disarm people those in power didn't like. I speak to black community groups, latinos, women, etc....