What's wrong on background check's for firearms?

Status
Not open for further replies.
kabrn I served six years in the army including a combat tour in desert storm i could use a weapon then to defend myself and country why should i have to have a background check so i can carry a weapon to defend me and my family now. i did my background check on forign soil in the sand!!!!!!!!!

Amen my friend, and my thanks for your service on our behalf!

rogerjames
Quote:
Rogerjames;

Why should I be punished for something that somebody else might do? The price I pay for a gun is most assuredly up (punishment) because of paperword mandated by the government. The fact that a citizen has to wait to possess, dependant on state law, what he just paid for is punishment. What if that citizen is in dire need of the firearm for self defense? And why, oh why, should the citizen have to wait if said person already owns multiple firearms?

The law in reality does nothing positive, furthers beaurocracy, engenders artificially high costs, and siphons money from the marketplace into government.

Punishing "this" guy for what "that" guy might do used to be considered morally wrong. Welcome to Amerika.

900F
If you push for this ABSOLUTE freedom, then you also inadvertently provide this freedom to those that do not deserve it. I am willing to justify my freedoms if this helps prevent the freedoms of those that don't deserve it.

In order to be a nurse, doctor, therapist etc, any type of healthcare worker, you have to pass a federal background check. Is this an invasion of freedoms? Do you want a convicted rapist taking care of your sick family member? NO! Does this stop them? No. Does it help? Yes.
Medical careers require a background check as a requirement of their profession because most any field where you work with people requires one. To work with people in church programs requires a background check as well. As does my profession as an over-the-road truck driver. But none of the examples you cite are a constitutional right granted law abiding citizens not by government fiat, but rather granted a free man by his creator.

There is no need for a background check for honest people. A firearms dealer should be able to ask a buyer if they are a criminal, and if they say they are, refuse to sell the gun to them. Because there are laws against criminals having guns. An honest man will be willing to admit if they're a crook or not.

If you opt to take a job requiring a background check, you made that choice, nobody forced you to do so. I haven't got a criminal background, so doing a background check on me is a pointless gesture. It's just another hurdle placed in my way to practice a God given right.
 
"...get their guns illegally is a false assumption..." No it isn't. Criminals don't buy firearms where they will be asked questions. They don't register them where required, fill in ATF forms or do anything else law abiding shooters do either.
 
If I may be contrary. Without the background check, convicted felons could walk in to any gun shop and buy whatever they want. I agree that criminals will get their guns despite this, but I would anticipate much more litigation against gun shops that unknowingly sold a weapon to a convicted felon, that was in turn used to kill, rob, rape, etc.

It is illegal for a felon to vote. Shoud we also have to run all voters through a background check when they are handed a ballot? What about those people who 'ding' on that check, should the not be allowed to vote? What happens to those voters who are incorrectly 'dinged' (remember, the brady background checks ding it is a false positive 80% of the time)

Do we hold the car dealership guilty if a drunk buys a car and kills someone? Or a bankrobber uses the car in a get-away?

what about a child molester? Does every school, church, toystore, etc need to run a background check on everyone who enters or face criminal liability to double check that the person isn't a child molester? What about real estate agents selling homes close to schools, should they be legally responsible to weed out child molestors?
If it is illegal for a convicted felon to lawfully purchase or possess a weapon, there has to be an attempt to prevent this from happening. For those of you against the background check, what alternative would you suggest to try to enforce the law that prevents criminals from lawfully purchasing a gun?

No, there need not be an attempt to enforce every law. In fact, there are tons of laws that get almost zero enforcment BY PAID LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

Why should non LEOs be expected to shoulder the burden of catching these felons out buying guns.

However, I suggest

#1 if it is a reasonable forseable risk that said felon will get a gun and commit a crime with it, he needs to stay locked up. (If it isn't reasonable or forseable, then how can any honest person selling the gun be held accountable for what the criminal does with it)

#2 if a felon having a gun is such a big deal that the 99.9999% of people who aren't felons must jump through all these hoops, why is it considered so minor as to only warrant a 3 year sentance, mostly served concurrently with whatever sentance is imposed for whatever crime WITH the gun the felon is caught doing.

#3 shouldn't law enforcement measures be the realm of law enforcement officers? Check that these felons don't have guns rather than allow them to wander unsupervised. What about their rights guaranteed by the Constitution against a cop just searching them without a warrant? Well, if you bring up their 4th and 5th as inviolate even though they are felons, why isn't the 2nd involate. Clearly we have decided a violent felon looses certain rights. I say search them on a regular basis.

Maybe even take a page from the child molesteters. Violent felons could be required to register their addresses, have an additional mark put on their driver's license, have there photo up on a webpage, etc.
 
Stickhauler - medical careers are neither enshrined in the Constitution as a right nor are they the core of individual self determination.
 
Criminals don't buy firearms where they will be asked questions. They don't register them where required, fill in ATF forms or do anything else law abiding shooters do either.

thank you, you just proved my point. If there were NO background checks, meaning no questions asked, ALL criminals would go to regular gunshops and buy their guns there.

now on to other types of undesirables: the guy that beat his wife silly and has a restraining order against him. Yup, i don't think that j.a. should be owning a gun. I doubt he will go downtown in a dark alley, to buy a handgun to knock off his two-timing wife:rolleyes:

not all criminals are career criminals. Career criminals will get guns no matter what, yet they don't account as the majority of "criminals".
 
it is illegal for a felon to vote. Shoud we also have to run all voters through a background check when they are handed a ballot?


they already do a background check on voters....see Texas,

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/laws/effects.shtml

read this part: "On a weekly basis, this office receives information from the Department of Public Safety ("DPS") regarding all persons in the state who have been finally convicted of a felony. We match the DPS data against our statewide file of registered voters, and when we find a possible match, we forward that information to the appropriate county for action."

guess what, sounds like a "background check" to me!! So your analogy is weak.
 
No, there need not be an attempt to enforce every law. In fact, there are tons of laws that get almost zero enforcment BY PAID LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

Why should non LEOs be expected to shoulder the burden of catching these felons out buying guns.

However, I suggest

#1 if it is a reasonable forseable risk that said felon will get a gun and commit a crime with it, he needs to stay locked up. (If it isn't reasonable or forseable, then how can any honest person selling the gun be held accountable for what the criminal does with it)

#2 if a felon having a gun is such a big deal that the 99.9999% of people who aren't felons must jump through all these hoops, why is it considered so minor as to only warrant a 3 year sentance, mostly served concurrently with whatever sentance is imposed for whatever crime WITH the gun the felon is caught doing.

#3 shouldn't law enforcement measures be the realm of law enforcement officers? Check that these felons don't have guns rather than allow them to wander unsupervised. What about their rights guaranteed by the Constitution against a cop just searching them without a warrant? Well, if you bring up their 4th and 5th as inviolate even though they are felons, why isn't the 2nd involate. Clearly we have decided a violent felon looses certain rights. I say search them on a regular basis.

Maybe even take a page from the child molesteters. Violent felons could be required to register their addresses, have an additional mark put on their driver's license, have there photo up on a webpage, etc.

Gonna be hard to tackle all your mis-perceptions but I will try.

1st: There are plenty of laws that are not enforced by LEOS. Tax violations come to mind. There are restrictions and requirements that the federal government requires. These are monitored and enforced without the involvement of local LEOS.

2nd: If you are capable of predicting the reasonable and forseable actions of said mentioned strangers, I suggest you share this information with the rest of us.

3rd: If you contend that law abiding citizens jumping hoops is not worth whatever obstacles this creates for criminals, then we agree to disagree.

4th:
shouldn't law enforcement measures be the realm of law enforcement officers?
Then we are all subject to the arbitrary enforcement that became national news in Texas when NFL player and wife were trying to make it to hospital before mother/in-law passed away
 
read this part: "On a weekly basis, this office receives information from the Department of Public Safety ("DPS") regarding all persons in the state who have been finally convicted of a felony. We match the DPS data against our statewide file of registered voters, and when we find a possible match, we forward that information to the appropriate county for action."

guess what, sounds like a "background check" to me!! So your analogy is weak.

Note, this is law enforcement doing law enforcement work. also note, the good people don't PROVE they are good people, the bad people are detected. If anything, you have bad people slipping through the cracks and voting illegally rather than good people being falsely denied their vote.

Finally, in this situation, none of the ballot staff get hauled off to jail for forgetting to run a background check.
 
1st: There are plenty of laws that are not enforced by LEOS. Tax violations come to mind. There are restrictions and requirements that the federal government requires. These are monitored and enforced without the involvement of local LEOS.

I never mentioned LOCAL LEOs. Tax violations are indeed handled by LEOS, just specialty LEOs

2nd: If you are capable of predicting the reasonable and forseable actions of said mentioned strangers, I suggest you share this information with the rest of us.

How far do you take that. We do indeed assume that a violent felon will continue in his violent criminal ways, that is why we ban his ownership of firearms.

The argument of 'we cannot predict who will commit a crime' does NOT justify requiring those who have broken no law that the must PROOVE they have broken no law. We have this thing called innocent until proven guilty. You can't just demand to check everyone.

3rd: If you contend that law abiding citizens jumping hoops is not worth whatever obstacles this creates for criminals, then we agree to disagree.

I do contend that, as do the founding fathers. Again, are we going to demand that every single car on the road have a breathalizer hooked to the ignition (at tax payer expense) as an obstacle to drunk drivers? Can we get women to wear chastity belts as an obstacle to rapists?

Then we will also imprison anyone driving a car without a breath checking ignition, and any woman without a chastity belt.

Making honest citizens jump through hoops is NOT the way to deal with criminals.

4th:
Quote:
shouldn't law enforcement measures be the realm of law enforcement officers?


Then we are all subject to the arbitrary enforcement that became national news in Texas when NFL player and wife were trying to make it to hospital before mother/in-law passed away

huh?

Are you suggesting that rather than have police deal with traffic violators we demand that john Q public needs to do it instead? And if John Q public fails, he should go to jail.

Yes, law enforcement is in charge of enforcing laws. Average citizens don't have to bother enforcing laws.

Are you trying to say because some cops on occasion make bad choices and even break the law, that we should simply prevent people from owning cars? That we should make auto dealers run background checks on car owners?

or is the arbitrary enforcement of laws by LEOs on a computer screen at some database somehow better?

I don't understand your logic at all. Please explain how a cop making a bad choice means it would be better to have some sort of automated system to prevent criminals from buying cars.
 
In order to be a nurse, doctor, therapist etc, any type of healthcare worker, you have to pass a federal background check. Is this an invasion of freedoms? Do you want a convicted rapist taking care of your sick family member? NO! Does this stop them? No. Does it help? Yes.

Why should such a dangerous person be allowed to interact at all with society??
 
I've filled out three of the yellow quickcheck forms this year, and will fill out another this week. Not a problem as far as I am concerned. It at least keeps felons from purchasing weapons in a Gunshop from an FFL. Guns will always be available on the street for these people, just like all the other stuff thats available on the street for a price.
 
How far do you take that. We do indeed assume that a violent felon will continue in his violent criminal ways, that is why we ban his ownership of firearms.

The argument of 'we cannot predict who will commit a crime' does NOT justify requiring those who have broken no law that the must PROOVE they have broken no law. We have this thing called innocent until proven guilty. You can't just demand to check everyone.

How do you enforce their ownership of firearms? Since you are against background checks, I assume you have a better suggestion.

Are you trying to say because some cops on occasion make bad choices and even break the law, that we should simply prevent people from owning cars? That we should make auto dealers run background checks on car owners?

That is done through the DMV. Car dealers don't have to do this. You have to present a valid license and verify insurance in order to drive off the lot. Not technically a background check, but the state verifies the information. I suppose you are against this also.
 
Jochen, are you old enough to remember that in California it was legal to wear a gun in the open? I was raised in California back in the fifties and sixties and my first gun was bought for me by my dad at 13 yrs. He bought it from Western Auto and it was a nine shot J.C. Higgins .22 revolver. The town I was raised in was a little town called Glen Avon about ten miles west of Riverside. Us kids would climb the hills and the gun was for rattle snakes. We wore them in the open and it was completly legal. There were no background checks then, you bought the danged thing and walked out with it. Background checks, we don't need no stinkin' background checks.
 
What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" don't you understand?

Having to pay for it is an infringement but nobody is giving guns away. Filling out 2 pages and waiting while a clerk calls it in is not an infringement.

none of the ballot staff get hauled off to jail for forgetting to run a background check.

You get hauled off if you forget to pay your taxes or if you forget to hide your crack pipe, Thats what happens to people who break the law. The clerk is not enforcing any law the clerk is following the law or breaking the law.

I've filled out three of the yellow quickcheck forms this year, and will fill out another this week. Not a problem as far as I am concerned. It at least keeps felons from purchasing weapons in a Gunshop from an FFL. Guns will always be available on the street for these people, just like all the other stuff thats available on the street for a price.

I bet it didn't hurt, and only took several minutes. Next they'll be making people who drive cars get licenses for that.
 
Hmmm, perhaps the problem is that "FORMERLY Convicted Felons" cannot own firearms under current law.

I'm feeling simplistic today, if a "Former Convicted Felon" has not paid his debt to Society IN FULL. then why is he/she on the street and not still incarcerated? If he/she has paid their debt, then why are they barred from enjoying the benefits of citizenship, including Self Defense and the shooting sports.

And with laws and rules labeling more and more bad, careless or stupid behavior as a "FELONY" everyday, perhaps the wording should be changed to "Violent Felon", if it has to stay in place at all?

The majority of convicted Felons incarcerated today were not and are not violent and were never a physical threat to anyone.

It's a little kafka like to find a 53 year old man with a 24 year history of laudable volunteer public service who is unable to buy a shotgun to hunt with his grandchildren, because he bounced an $18 check when he was 19 years old and has that on his record as a felony.

Something to think about, "Judge not lest you ..." and all that!

Regards,
:)
 
Hmmm, perhaps the problem is that "FORMERLY Convicted Felons" cannot own firearms under current law.

I'm feeling simplistic today, if a "Former Convicted Felon" has not paid his debt to Society IN FULL. then why is he/she on the street and not still incarcerated? If he/she has paid their debt, then why are they barred from enjoying the benefits of citizenship, including Self Defense and the shooting sports.

And with laws and rules labeling more and more bad, careless or stupid behavior as a "FELONY" everyday, perhaps the wording should be changed to "Violent Felon", if it has to stay in place at all?

The majority of convicted Felons incarcerated today were not and are not violent and were never a physical threat to anyone.

It's a little kafka like to find a 53 year old man with a 24 year history of laudable volunteer public service who is unable to buy a shotgun to hunt with his grandchildren, because he bounced an $18 check when he was 19 years old and has that on his record as a felony.

Something to think about, "Judge not lest you ..." and all that!

Regards,

+1 5knives
 
The war on drugs is a failure. Let those idiots out of the pen, legalize the drugs, tax the drugs, use the money and open space in the nations prisons to put the dangerous ones away forever. There wouldn't be a need for background checks, not that theres a need now. Make the background checks optional/free.

Frankly during my stint with A County Sheriff, and Later with Florida DOC, I found that virtually every violent crime, rape, assault and Battery etc…. took place after the perp imbibed either drugs, alcohol, and more often than not, both. Another precursor is that they already had prior arrests and convictions. The truly rare cased did not have these issues.

I agree; the war on drugs is a failure. We really ain’t had one yet. It never truly got started, and the few times it started to be effective, some Dimocrat would find a reason to force our agencies to back off. One code word for, “you are being successful” is reorganize or reform and be even more efficient.

I served six years in the army including a combat tour in desert storm i could use a weapon then to defend myself and country why should i have to have a background check so i can carry a weapon to defend me and my family now. i did my background check on forign soil in the sand!!!!!!!!!

Son, first thank you, but you don’t understand, you are considered as a terrorist threat by this government. The present Administration will thank you to your face, and do surveillance on you if they don't like your politics. I truly feel your pain. I was a Vietnam Vet, with two tours with the 3rd Marine Division, and over 10 years in the Corps myself. Been down that road, somewhat.

To assume all criminals (would-be and career) get their guns illegally is a false assumption, a total farce.

Actually it not an assumption, it is a fact 100%. If they are criminals they are forbidden to purchase firearms by law. The very act of them acquiring a firearm is a felony, by ANY MEANS. And if they haven’t committed a crime yet they ain’t criminals. It’s a fact Jack.

To assume all criminals (would-be and career) get their guns illegally is a false assumption, a total farce.

AS stated above, if they haven’t committed a crime, they ain't a criminal. Wanna’ Be ain’t a crime. And if they are already criminals it is illegal for them to acquire firearms at all.

Actually it is a pretty simple concept.

The courts have made it even more fun. I can be criminally punished for giving false information on the present yellow sheet we have to fill out when we purchase a firearm, legally.

A criminal illegally buying a firearm, cannot be criminally punished for giving false information. Someone here already mentioned it in passing.

The Courts have stated that a criminal may not be "FORCED" to give information against themselves, so false information is not criminal in their case. Yea, we have come that far from reality.

We are indeed falling down the hole.

We just have to ask George Orwell, You warned us, you told us about Newspeak, how could so many of our own countrymen be so gullible?

Simply amazing.

It at least keeps felons from purchasing weapons in a Gunshop from an FFL.

Maybe using his own name. There is a brand new crime you may have heard about. ID theft. And I don’t need your Social Security number to buy it either.

I need to know your address, name, date of birth, and where you were born. Not hard to find out on anyone.

Scenario, I am a criminal: I call you at home because I have gotten your name and address, not real hard to do.

I ask you, or worse, one of your kids or wife/girlfriend etc… “Are you/Is he The John Q Doe born April 1 1901 in Lincoln Nebraska?” I know your/his mother. Be insistent. Most folks will correct you.

“Nope, /he was born on Feb 28, 1940 in Detroit.” Oh thanks I am sorry to have bothered you, but I was sure you were/he was Her son. Good bye”.

That is all the data I need to get a gun. Whether I am a criminal or not. But I realize if I am planning a murder, rape, armed robbery etc…. I would never commit ID theft.

I have a bridge in Brooklyn for you if you truly believe that.

But I know make all the honest folks do it so someone gets a false sense of security. Sheesh!

Guns will always be available on the street for these people, just like all the other stuff thats available on the street for a price.

Whether we totally outlaw guns, or don’t, I agree, there will always be guns available for a price. Interesting factoid, is that 100% of the folks buying them will be criminals, every last one of them.

How do you enforce their ownership of firearms? Since you are against background checks, I assume you have a better suggestion.

Absolutely. Keep criminals in jail. I was and am a strong believer in executions of folks with three felony convictions. Once may have been a mistake, or abuse, more than 2 is a life style. No appeal, no debate, just a small caliber bullet and do it in a “clean” room with a hose and a drain in it.

There is a legitimate argument about what is and should be a felony, but that is a totally different discussion.

Criminals commit crimes. Ask any LEO, CO, or anyone else involved with the “justice” system. The vast, and I do mean vast, majority of the felonies are committed by the same folks over and over again.

One reason crime has gone down recently, is we are keeping more and more criminals in jail longer and longer. It works.

And for those who are following these things, like I do, the reason the Dimocrats want present and former convicted felons to vote, is because they are IIRC 82% Dimocrats per Dr. Lott. My own informal survey would have put it at approximately 97%.

"O BRAVE NEW WORLD"

Go figure.

Fred
 
rbernie Stickhauler - medical careers are neither enshrined in the Constitution as a right nor are they the core of individual self determination.

I believe that's the point I made, perhaps not quite as clear as I hoped to it seems in retrospect:

Medical careers require a background check as a requirement of their profession because most any field where you work with people requires one. To work with people in church programs requires a background check as well. As does my profession as an over-the-road truck driver. But none of the examples you cite are a constitutional right granted law abiding citizens not by government fiat, but rather granted a free man by his creator.

I'm pretty sure being a truck driver isn't enshrined as a constitutional right either. I may not have been clear enough, but working in the medical field, or working in any field that requires a background check, submitting to that check is a choice you make to work in that field. If you opt not to submit to the check, it doesn't affect your rights, it simply prevent you from gaining the job you sought.
 
Quote:
How do you enforce their ownership of firearms? Since you are against background checks, I assume you have a better suggestion.
Absolutely. Keep criminals in jail. I was and am a strong believer in executions of folks with three felony convictions. Once may have been a mistake, or abuse, more than 2 is a life style. No appeal, no debate, just a small caliber bullet and do it in a “clean” room with a hose and a drain in it.

There is a legitimate argument about what is and should be a felony, but that is a totally different discussion.

Criminals commit crimes. Ask any LEO, CO, or anyone else involved with the “justice” system. The vast, and I do mean vast, majority of the felonies are committed by the same folks over and over again.

One reason crime has gone down recently, is we are keeping more and more criminals in jail longer and longer. It works.

And for those who are following these things, like I do, the reason the Dimocrats want present and former convicted felons to vote, is because they are IIRC 82% Dimocrats per Dr. Lott. My own informal survey would have put it at approximately 97%.

"O BRAVE NEW WORLD"

Go figure.

Fred

Unbelievable. I guess you recommend a "life sentence" for all felony infractions.:rolleyes:

This is your suggestion to enforce the law that prevents felons from lawfully purchasing weapons?

And I thought our politicians were stupid :confused:
 
rogerjames and a few others among you have it bass-akwards.

Example:

For those of you against the background check, what alternative would you suggest to try to enforce the law that prevents criminals from lawfully purchasing a gun?

The point being that the law should not be there in the first place.

Some have become so accustomed to the "rigamarole" that you think the Form 4473, the prohibition against mail orders, obtaining a concealed carry license, etc, etc, etc, is all very natural and logical and is your starting point for viewing anything regarding gun laws.

You have fallen into the trap, my friends.

Because you have already started from halfway down the "slippery slope."

Terry, 230RN

----------------
PS I'll leave it to others to address the concept of "If you don't trust them, don't let them out," and how ridiculous the body of offenses that have become felonies is.
 
rogerjames and a few others among you have it bass-akwards.

Example:

Quote:
For those of you against the background check, what alternative would you suggest to try to enforce the law that prevents criminals from lawfully purchasing a gun?
The point being that the law should not be there in the first place.

Some have become so accustomed to the "rigamarole" that you think the Form 4473, the prohibition against mail orders, obtaining a concealed carry license, etc, etc, etc, is all very natural and logical and is your starting point for viewing anything regarding gun laws.

You have fallen into the trap, my friends.

You have already started from halfway down the "slippery slope."

Terry, 230RN

Can I get an AMEN??? Well said my friend!!
 
Unbelievable. I guess you recommend a "life sentence" for all felony infractions.

This is your suggestion to enforce the law that prevents felons from lawfully purchasing weapons?

And I thought our politicians were stupid

Any adult who is free in this society should be completely trusted with a firearm. There are far more deadly things in this day & age than a gun. Any adult who CANNOT be trusted with a gun, either needs better firearms safety education, or should be locked up, depending on intent or lack thereof.
 
Any adult who CANNOT be trusted with a gun, either needs better firearms safety education, or should be locked up, depending on intent or lack thereof.

who determines if they can be trusted with a gun? Several posters have had ND. IMO, they can't be trusted with a gun, should they go to jail, or do they just need more training? Where do you draw the line? 1 ND is retraining, 2 its locked up for life?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top