Fee and background check to exercise your religion

[waterhouse]

Thanks to TR and others for fighting the good fight. I agree with you and it has been an interesting read.

Bernie:

I debunked your argument when you made this blanket statement:

Sernv99 - you do realize that NICS appeals can take months, if not years, right?

He showed you evidence that appeals can take that long, which is exactly what he said. They can also take a shorter amount of time. Either way, there are people out there who have had their rights infringed through no fault of their own. 3 weeks or a year, either way, there are law abiding citizens being denied a right because of a system that has been shown to not have an effect on gun crime.

I found proof that there are folks out there that didnt have to go through a 6-9 month ordeal, hence debunking your generalization. Word to the wise, don't make a generalization/blanket statements without first checking the facts.

Once again, you debunked nothing. Please respond to the question.

 

[sernv99]

Bernie focuses on the "6-9 month" appeal, therefore making a generalization in his statement. Wonder why he doesn't focus on how others member haven't had the need to wait "6-9 months" for a NIC appeal.

Slam dunk and to boot, NICS is here to stay so the burden is on you to come up with an argument to the powers to be and convince them to overturn NICs...so far I have seen people argue to get rid of NICS because since outlaw felons were allowed to own guns legally back in the good ole' days of the Wild West and the crime rate was low, why shouldn't it be any different today And when Bernie comes up with an argument showing that some people have had several month delay in the NICS appeal, all that the other side needs to do is find folks who had to make a simple phone call to get their NICS denial snafu cleared up. That right there puts a big ole hole in this generalization about NICS appeals taking a long time.

Bernie,you generalized the whole NICS appeal process, so get over it.

 

[jaybr]

I asked the question earlier in the thread does the background check stop people who do not have the right to buy a gun from walking into a gun store and buying one.

Had you read the cites I provided, you would have learned that there were, on average, sixty five thousand Brady NICS rejections by the DoJ each year between 1999 and 2005. You would have also learned that approximately ten thousand of those rejections were overturned on appeal, meaning that the DoJ agreed that it should not have prevented the sale of the firearm

What this data tells me is that it stopped 55,000 from doing just that. Since these people purchasing a gun is a crime, it stopped 55,000 crimes each year, correct? I also question how many people knowing they wouldn't pass the check didn't even try and buy a gun.

The data also shows there where 10,000 who where denied and had to wait for an appeal, I believe NCIS should work on improving that number.

Once an appeal has been successfully granted, what happens next time that person has the check run? Did the appeal straiten out the records so it won't happen again?

 

[TexasRifleman]

good ole' days of the Wild West and the crime rate was low, why shouldn't it be any different today

Ahh yes, the good old days of 1992.... My great grandad used to talk about those days.......

Since these people purchasing a gun is a crime, it stopped 55,000 crimes each year, correct? I also question how many people knowing they wouldn't pass the check didn't even try and buy a gun.

Actually no, that's not what happened. If a felon attempts to buy a gun, THAT is a crime, whether or not he actually succeeds.

The Brady Law that you all favor so much makes that a crime, yet the incidents of conviction under Brady are almost non existent.

So no, you cannot say that just because 55,000 people were denied under NICS that it stopped 55,000 crimes since we've seen repeatedly that

1) Not all NICS denials are correct, and not every one that's rejected gets appealed and

2) The gun crime rate is the same now as it was in the 1980's

So has there been an OVERALL impact on crime? No. Criminals who want guns can still get them, just like they always have.

This law inconveniences them slightly. I doubt they mind too much.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

sernv99: "... why shouldn't it be any different today ..."

Well, why shouldn't it be any different today?

So far, and it was way, way up in this thread, you have cited only the fact that my state is less "diverse" than most to explain how it is that one may, and many do, purchase handguns here without ID or even giving a name, through classified ads, yet our crime rates are among the lowest. If "why shouldn't it be any different today" to you means we have too many black people today, I'd like to hear you say that directly.

 

[jaybr]

Another question, how many checks are run each year?

I'd like to understand what percentage that 10,000 false hits represents.

 

[sernv99]

Well, why shouldn't it be any different today?

well can't argue with your inability to be cognizant to the daily happenings around the U.S.....

 

[Duke of Doubt]

sernv99: "well can't argue with your inability to be cognizant to the daily happenings around the U.S....."

Specifically what?

 

[TexasRifleman]

Another question, how many checks are run each year?

I'd like to understand what percentage that 10,000 false hits represents.

See, that's the problem. You want to show that it's a very small percentage (which it is) so you can argue that it's only an "infringement" for a small number of people.

Unless you are one of those people you see it as "no big deal". You're OK with denying a small number of people their rights, even though it hasn't been proven to lower the crime rate since it doesn't impact YOU directly and somehow you "feel like" it just HAS to be helping, though you can't show that.

This is the kind of justification we see all the time... "it's not that big a deal". When then in your mind DOES it get to be a big deal?
If you're like many people you will decide it's a "big deal" when it finally infringes on YOU. By then who do you think will stick up for YOU?

And anyway, you still cannot conclude that a denial of a NICS check prevents a crime, except the crime of actually trying to buy a gun as a restricted person, a crime that the government refuses to try to do anything about as indicated by their almost nonexistent conviction rate for Brady Law violations.

The truly sad part of all of this is that I'm having to debate this on THR rather than DU or Huffpo.

 

[jaybr]

And anyway, you still cannot conclude that a denial of a NICS check prevents a crime, except the crime of actually trying to buy a gun as a restricted person, a crime that the government refuses to try to do anything about as indicated by their almost nonexistent conviction rate for Brady Law violations.

I guess it depends on which govt your talking about. There was a program implemented here back in the late 90's called Project Exile which enforced mandatory 5 year prison sentence for illegal gun possession, and it worked.
http://judiciary.house.gov/legacy/earlatt.htm

So if we are going to lock someone up for a mandatory 5 years for possessing an illegal firearm, should we really let them walk into Walmart and purchase an illegal firearm unchallenged?

 

[waterhouse]

Bernie focuses on the "6-9 month" appeal, therefore making a generalization in his statement. Wonder why he doesn't focus on how others member haven't had the need to wait "6-9 months" for a NIC appeal.

You are the one focusing on 6-9 months. rbernie is focusing on the fact that law abiding citizens being denied the right to purchase a gun because of NICS errors is an infringement.

In fact, 2 pages ago rbernie said this:

But let's play along and assume a best case scenario of six weeks for an appeal. Is that really acceptable? Do you not feel some sense of infringement for a system that creates at least TEN THOUSAND erroneous rejections each year?

You haven't answered his question yet.

so far I have seen people argue to get rid of NICS because since outlaw felons were allowed to own guns legally back in the good ole' days of the Wild West and the crime rate was low, why shouldn't it be any different today

Again, you keep referring to the late 1800s. TexasRifleman has point out that there were no checks in the early 19 90s.

And when Bernie comes up with an argument showing that some people have had several month delay in the NICS appeal, all that the other side needs to do is find folks who had to make a simple phone call to get their NICS denial snafu cleared up. That right there puts a big ole hole in this generalization about NICS appeals taking a long time.

First, once again, he never made a gerneralization. He used the phrase "can take several months . . ."

Second, the fact that some people can get their NICS snafu cleared up with a simple phone call is of little help to the people who can't get the error cleared up with a single phone call.

 

[runrabbitrun]

Doubt it will get answered along with others.

But it's still fun to watch. lol

 

[TexasRifleman]

So if we are going to lock someone up for a mandatory 5 years for possessing an illegal firearm, should we really let them walk into Walmart and purchase an illegal firearm unchallenged?

Ugh.

Again ignoring the fact that until 1993 that's exactly how it was.

It was then, as it is now, a crime for a felon to have a gun.

The laws against THAT are very old. Yet, as you show, felons continue to get guns.

So what has changed? Seriously, you guys keep talking around that.

Why is it that there were no background checks before 1993, yet the gun crime rate today is the same as it was in 1988?

Is your argument that "Maybe it would be worse if not for the background checks"?

 

[CoRoMo]

You haven't answered his question yet.

There is a long list of those. He can't answer what he doesn't understand.

 

[jaybr]

If it can be proven that the background check does absolutely nothing to keep guns out of the wrong hands, I'd readily vote against it. I fully understand that criminals can get guns by other means, but that doesn't mean that they all do. All I have seen in this thread is that the crime rate hasn't gone down, but that illegal gun ownership crimes aren't prosecuted, so how do we know the effect?. The background check not having an effect on the crime rate, and keeping some guns out of the wrong hands are 2 different issues.

If the NICS check does more harm than good, get rid of it, but I haven't been convinced that is the case.

What percentage of checks are falsely denied? What is the average time it takes for appeal? How many people are correctly denied? How many don't try and purchase a weapon because they know they'll be denied? Without the background check, how many otherwise unable would walk into Walmart and buy a gun?

 

[CoRoMo]

If the NICS check does more harm than good...

If the NICS check does nothing to improve what it was intended to improve... would you favor getting rid of it?

I think we've illustrated how it failed to achieve its intended goal.
The purpose was to reduce violent crime by denying a great many people one way of acquiring a firearm. It has been proven that the NICS does nothing. It has no impact.

Are you then in favor of beating a dead horse?

 

[jaybr]

If the NICS check does nothing to improve what it was intended to improve... would you favor getting rid of it?

If the NICS check has no positive effect on keeping guns out of the wrong hands, I would favor getting rid of it.

 

[CoRoMo]

jaybr...

I appreciate the way you've participated in this discussion. The other guy hasn't been commanding such respect. I've even hit the low road a time or two on this one.

 

[sernv99]

See, that's the problem. You want to show that it's a very small percentage (which it is) so you can argue that it's only an "infringement" for a small number of people.

You admit it is a VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE. It's about time you fessed up. Just like bernie who keeps hanging onto the "6-9 month" figure for NICS appeal, making a generalization that it is a widespread wait time for an appeal.

 

[CoRoMo]

I present... the other guy.

 

[jaybr]

jaybr...

I appreciate the way you've participated in this discussion. The other guy hasn't been commanding such respect. I've even hit the low road a time or two on this one.

Thanks,

I'm certainly not anti 2A, and as I stated earlier in the thread I never gave this much thought as I've never had a negative experience. My logic tells me I don't want Mexicans illegally crossing the border and heading strait for the gun shop and purchasing a gun on their way to VA for a job. If the data proves that the NICS check does nothing to prevent that or other similar scenarios, then I'd agree with getting rid of it.

 

[runrabbitrun]

Maybe the 'other guy' would loose a substantial government contract worth millions
if he were to admit that the NICS program is a dismal failure?

 

[TexasRifleman]

You admit it is a VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE. It's about time you fessed up. Just like bernie who keeps hanging onto the "6-9 month" figure for NICS appeal, making a generalization that it is a widespread wait time for an appeal.

Yes, that's never been in doubt. No one ever said otherwise.

A small percentage of gun owners rights are being infringed with no benefits such as lowered crime or safer citizens.

That should be enough reason to consider the law a failure.

But again, since it doesn't impact YOU you are happy to continue with it.

Thank you for finally agreeing with what I've been saying all along.

I was worried there for a bit.

 

[sernv99]

and thank you for admitting that NICS proves to be effective...

 

[TexasRifleman]

and thank you for admitting that NICS proves to be effective...

I'm thinking you could benefit from some English comprehension classes.

Nowhere has it been shown NICS is effective, just that it infringes on a relatively small number of law abiding citizens.

But since one if them isn't you, then you're OK with that.

I'm not sure how that equates to the law being "effective". Been waiting 10 pages for someone to show that. Still waiting....