Why FFL...?

[macadore]

You're not. Because I didn't write that.

You're right, it's what fiddletown wrote, but you defended it. See #40. You changed the subject when you wrote,

Do you honestly think they're no distinction between j-walking and armed robbery? That is a reductio ad absurdam.

You aren't going to win this argument because a) this is the way the law is and it isn't changing anytime soon, and b) suggesting that felons ought to be able to have guns is a really really bad idea.

I have already won this argument because you're having to change the subject and claim that I wrote something I never wrote to avoid defending an indefensible statement.

Do you believe,

[2] Committing a crime shows a flaw in one's character. One has demonstrated, by committing a crime, a reason to question his integrity, honesty, judgment, impulse control, sense of responsibility and/or trustworthiness. The world is full of people who are subject to the temptations and stresses of living in this world and still don't commit crimes. Serving one's time doesn't magically repair one's character or demonstrate that he has become more responsible or trustworthy than he was before he committed the crime.

 

[atblis]

I think it's unconstitutional on it's face, but even the NRA isn't trying to reverse the GCA of 1968.

I was going to mention the NRA. I don't think they'd support this even if it was popular with the general public. They represent the firearms industry and indirectly you and me. Even if it would be beneficial to the industry, they're more likely to support the status quo.

 

[Bubba613]

I have already won this argument because you're having to change the subject and claim that I wrote something I never wrote to avoid defending an indefensible statement.

OK, so you mis-attribute someone else's statement to me and somehow that makes you win the argument. Got it.
See ya!

 

[cskny]

The fallacy underlying this is that the purpose of prison is to remove dangerous criminals from the street. It is not. It is to punish people. Once their punishment is served, they are released. That doesn't mean they are happy well-adjusted adults.


Said very well. But take it a step further...the punishment is not just the time in jail, it's the other rights and freedoms that get removed as well. Sorry, most of us don't cry or fight for the punished.

And before this "what about the 2A" argument goes anywhere, you are constitutionally allowed to remove that 2A right through due process. A convicted felon HAD that due process.

I remember another conversation about that.....hum:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=479651&highlight=2a+rights+constitution

So why the FFL? Because it's an imperfect solution to enforce a punishment on those who are no longer legally allowed to own. What's the alternative? A pinky swear that a buyer is legal....

 

[hirundo82]

Sorry, but I do believe that you've been misinformed. From my experience and knowledge as a volunteer for our police department, our vetting process is as I've described. And it's my understanding that this sorting of vetting process is common among police forces in most cities. I'd be very surprised if they didn't do that sort of thing in San Antonio.

There is a difference between what is required and what big departments do. Some large departments may put hirees through a process similar to a TS/SCI clearance, but not everyone does and it is usually not required.

At least in Texas, the background check to get a CHL is more extensive than that required to become a TCLEOSE-certified officer.

 

[Mozart 2]

So why the FFL? Because it's an imperfect solution to enforce a punishment on those who are no longer legally allowed to own. What's the alternative? A pinky swear that a buyer is legal....

What's the alternative? How about a system that allows the seller/shipper to verify that I have passed my background check, then he ships me my purchase. I'm not advocating the elimination of the background check, I'm advocating the elimination of the middleman.

Several people on this thread are confusing my original post/question. Let me restate it: How is the world a safer/better place because of the FFL?

I'm not asking whether the world is better because of background checks. I fully believe there are those in our society who have voluntarily (yes, through their own volition and choices) given up their right to own guns. I just have a problem with paying $20-$50 (or more) for a middleman when the gun could be shipped directly to my door (after verification of my background check).

 

[Frank Ettin]

...At least in Texas, the background check to get a CHL is more extensive than that required to become a TCLEOSE-certified officer.

Are you suggesting that the Texas CHL background check is more extensive than a records review based on submitted fingerprints? Or are you suggesting that to become a police officer one would not be required to have anything beyond a records check, i. e., no personal interview, no medical examination, no psychological examination, no polygraph examination, or the like?

...There is a difference between what is required and what big departments do. Some large departments may put hirees through a process similar to a TS/SCI clearance, but not everyone does and it is usually not required....

Well our department uses the process I outlined earlier, and with 95 sworn officers, I don't think it can be characterized as a big department. Other PDs seem to have similar protocols.

1. National City, California (population 55,000) PD (http://nationalcitypd.com/join/police-hiring-process) includes
   • oral interview
   • background investigation including educational, employment, financial, criminal, and driving histories.
   • Voice stress analyzer examination
2. Orlando. Florida (population 235,000) PD (http://www.cityoforlando.net/police/misc/recruiting.htm) includes
   • oral interview
   • polygraph examination
   • background examination
   • medical examination
   • psychological examination
3. Shelbyville, Indiana (population 18,000) PD (http://www.shelbyvillepd.com/hiring.htm) includes
   • Oral interview
   • background investigation
   • physical and psychological examination
4. Austin, Texas (population 715,000) PD (http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/police/recruiting/hiring.htm) includes
   • oral interview
   • background investigation
   • polygraph examination
   • psychological interview
   • physical assesment
   • drug testing
5. City of Myrtle Beach, Florida (population 29,000) PD (http://www.cityofmyrtlebeach.com/police/Police Hiring Process.htm) includes
   • oral interview
   • background investigation, including: (1) contacting employer and social references; (2) contacting friends, family and neighbors; and (3) criminal, driving, credit and educational histories
   • psychological examination
   • physical examination

 

[cskny]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cskny

So why the FFL? Because it's an imperfect solution to enforce a punishment on those who are no longer legally allowed to own. What's the alternative? A pinky swear that a buyer is legal....
What's the alternative? How about a system that allows the seller/shipper to verify that I have passed my background check, then he ships me my purchase. I'm not advocating the elimination of the background check, I'm advocating the elimination of the middleman.

Several people on this thread are confusing my original post/question. Let me restate it: How is the world a safer/better place because of the FFL?

I'm not asking whether the world is better because of background checks. I fully believe there are those in our society who have voluntarily (yes, through their own volition and choices) given up their right to own guns. I just have a problem with paying $20-$50 (or more) for a middleman when the gun could be shipped directly to my door (after verification of my background check).

Sorry Mozart2, I did misunderstand the original question. I didn't mean to defend the FFL system against other alternatives that could accomplish the same background checks. I was stuck in the current box, thanks for opening the lid

 

[Werewolf]

[2] Committing a crime shows a flaw in one's character. One has demonstrated, by committing a crime, a reason to question his integrity, honesty, judgment, impulse control, sense of responsibility and/or trustworthiness. The world is full of people who are subject to the temptations and stresses of living in this world and still don't commit crimes. Serving one's time doesn't magically repair one's character or demonstrate that he has become more responsible or trustworthy than he was before he committed the crime.

Using that logic the founders were absolutely not to be trusted...

Personally I'll go with the guys who have enough brains, integrity, honesty and pure gumption to question bad laws and take action as necessary to change them.

Or I suppose we could all be good little sheep and bleat our way thru life at the beck and call of our masters in the goobermint.

 

[Bubba613]

The Founders were wife-beaters and murderers? Who knew??

 

[mgkdrgn]

Then why are they allowed to walk the streets as a free person if they have demonstrated they cannot be trusted with a firearm?

You must work in the prison construction business. ;-)

Lets see, we would have to lock up all past felons (who have completed their legally mandated sentences), every one convicted of a crime that had the -possibility- of a sentence of a year or more, every one =accused= of domestic abuse, everyone ever committed to a mental institution, everyone dis-honorably discharged from the military ... yadda yadda yadda. That would be, what 1/4 of the population of the country?

 

[TexasRifleman]

Lets see, we would have to lock up all past felons (who have completed their legally mandated sentences), every one convicted of a crime that had the -possibility- of a sentence of a year or more, every one =accused= of domestic abuse, everyone ever committed to a mental institution, everyone dis-honorably discharged from the military ... yadda yadda yadda. That would be, what 1/4 of the population of the country?

We are talking about what SHOULD be, not what IS.

No one suggested locking up every felon forever. After someone serves their sentence why should they not be allowed to own a firearm again? If they are dangerous then they shouldn't be allowed a car, knife, or baseball bat either right? Or, maybe the idea of all felons never being allowed to have a gun again is dumb.

 

[hirundo82]

Are you suggesting that the Texas CHL background check is more extensive than a records review based on submitted fingerprints? Or are you suggesting that to become a police officer one would not be required to have anything beyond a records check, i. e., no personal interview, no medical examination, no psychological examination, no polygraph examination, or the like?

TCLEOSE only requires an NCIC and TCIC background check. Texas CHL requirements are that fingerprints be submitted to the FBI for a criminal background check.

 

[Harley Quinn]

I have to think...
If other countries got involved in foreign affairs as much as America does and topple countries with high death rate...

Just check this out...

http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/stolinsky.html

Is America the most violent nation on earth? Those who blame this country for most of the ills of the world would have us believe so. They frequently refer to high rates of homicide and suicide, though they rarely cite actual data. But before fear impels us to shred the Bill of Rights, we should determine whether our fear has a factual basis.
****
In short, we all must admit that we have much to learn about the causes of violence. This requires more effort and intellectual honesty than looking to the government to pass yet another law. America is hardly the most violent nation, and our homicide rate has fallen recently, but we are more violent than we used to be --- and than we should be.

This is with enforcement in place The need to have laws, clearly a help you would think, and why FFL enforcement is in place...

 

[Bubba613]

No one suggested locking up every felon forever. After someone serves their sentence why should they not be allowed to own a firearm again? If they are dangerous then they shouldn't be allowed a car, knife, or baseball bat either right? Or, maybe the idea of all felons never being allowed to have a gun again is dumb.

For the same reason that people convicted of child molesting are barred from working in day care centers, people convicted of financial fraud are barred from working on Wall St, people convicted of betting on baseball are barred from working in baseball.
They have a demonstrated propensity to abuse their positions.
Why is that difficult to understand?

 

[Mozart 2]

For the same reason that people convicted of child molesting are barred from working in day care centers...They have a demonstrated propensity to abuse their positions.
Why is that difficult to understand?

Although this is a bit off-topic from my original post, I have to say I agree with Bubba here.

Don't get me wrong. I'm an ardent supporter of the 2nd amendment. You can have my guns when you pry them from my cold dead hands. However, I'm also a big fan of personal responsibility. Life is all about choices and consequences. If you don't like the consequences, start making better choices.

There are people who, by their own volition, choices and actions, given up their right to own firearms. We have to keep in mind that this right was not TAKEN from them but GIVEN UP by them. If you don't want to give up that right, then don't commit crimes whose consequence is loss of firearms rights. If you want to continue to drive your car, then don't drive drunk. If you CHOOSE to molest children, then be prepared to be banned from teaching grade school. If you CHOOSE to commit a felony, be prepared to surrender your guns. Actions have consequences (some good, some bad). As Bubba said, it's really not that difficult to understand.

Sorry, I'll go back to my cave now.

 

[Frank Ettin]

TCLEOSE only requires an NCIC and TCIC background check....

And considerably more firearms and "use of force law" training than a CHL. And, as I outlined in post 57, considerably more screening is required to actually become a police officer.

 

[Frank Ettin]

TCLEOSE only requires an NCIC and TCIC background check....

And this is just plain wrong.

The full list of requirements is set out in Title 37 of the Texas Administrative Code, section 217.1. Note those requirements include:

• a background investigation and interview by representatives of the appointing authority (217.1(a)(10))
• an examination by a physician, selected by the appointing or employing agency, including a drug screening (217.1(a)(11))
• an examination by a psychologist or psychiatrist (217.1(a)(12))

 

[Harley Quinn]

Back to original OP and FFL...
Just received my Rifleman Mag. from NRA...Article about the border states to Mexico are going to receive greater scrutiny, when selling long guns, multiple within a week...

Some how they feel it will help keep down the guns going to the cartel I have to think???

The whole situation with Ollie North comes to mind

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/nsaebb2.htm

The Kerry Committee report concluded that "senior U.S. policy makers were not immune to the idea that drug money was a perfect solution to the Contras' funding problems."