Idea regarding background checks

[Guest cardcutter]

Well like I said in the first port then. Background based on DL/ID number with no reporting of what was bought.

And for face to face a person can call a 800 number with a DL/ID number of the buyer without reporting what was bought.

Seems better than what we have now. And would be easier for a FFL as well.

Dolomite

 

I agree!

[Guest PapaB]

Dolomite, even the NRA, after fighting it unsuccessfuly for 20 years, has given up on getting the mental health issues fixed in the background check system. If government databases worked, the no fly list wouldn't have 3 year olds on it and when mistakes were found, they'd get fixed.

 

It's time to treat background checks like a pariah. The public will stop accepting them if we start educating them about the ineffectiveness of the system. Public opinion will sway public policy. When we get our collective act together and use social networking to educate the general public about the facts, we'll see a change in attitude. Too often we focus on fighting the far left when it's the moderates we should be talking to. The political majority in this country isn't liberal, they're independents and we should actively seek to make them our allies in this fight.

 

You may be right about not getting rid of background checks but I prefer to continue fighting toward that goal than to give up and make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm going to say this quote until I die. When you compromise between good and evil, evil always wins. Evil, in this case is government if you wish to try to make something right. People who say things will never happen fall short when they see DC v Heller and Chicago v Washington win. Don't tell me something can't happen. Sometimes thing happen when the opposite is being pushed at us, and things like that need to be used as a push back. That, or nullifying some other existing laws.

 

I really hate this idea of people admitting a law is forever when that doesn't have to be the case. The same principle is used every day to make new law. Why not push back with laws that preserve liberty?

 

The only thing better than what we have now is some laws nullified. The BATFE isn't sacrosanct. They don't have a right to exist. Pushing back, hard is the only way to go right now, anyway.

 

Gordon, what I think you're missing is the idea that your wanting to change things, such as the background check, is that your idea, although noble, is the same tactic that led to the demise of the Republican Party in my mind, and the results have been bad. The Republican Party is effectively dead, with their pushing of the Tea Party out. The only thing to resuscitate that party is to force them into understanding that there goose is cooked by the compromises they made. The only way we can do that is pull back and get ready for a fight with them, not the Dems. Dems are effectively committing suicide right now, just that they are taking the country down with them. Sandy Hook Syndrome is what I think

I'll start calling it.

 

Basic principles are good enough for me. Like PapaB says, treat it as the pariah it is.

Edited February 6, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[Jonnin]

I think that is what I just said, with the exception of that endorsement thing you keep mentioning. What is that for?

 

Look, Gordon, all I want is for there to be transparency, meaning there is no government involvement between a dealer

and a customer, making no interference in the transaction when there is no need. When you can show me the background

check, which I was for, originally, has prevented crime, in any noticeable quantity, I may change my mind. As it stands,

there is no reason to have any more than a database of known felons. And I know that already exists, so it shouldn't cost

much to put that on DVD's and distribute them to gun dealers. It could all be done without even connecting to the internet

while checking, leaving no record or reason for the Tiarht Amendment, which is fixing to be bypassed by Eric Holder et al.

 

One of the most notable stats coming out --- for whatever such a "study' is worth --- they asked a bunch of felons (in jail, I think) how they got their guns.  10% got them "legally"  --- from a dealer that is.   The other 90% stole them or got them from person to person buys.    If they fixed the busted system to catch only the 10% that claimed to have bought them legit,  and did nothing else, that would prevent some tiny, small amount of crime and maybe be worthwhile.   Assuming these people were not legal, that is (IE bought gun, THEN break law as a first time thug) -- some of that 10% probably fall into this category.   

 

However, a common "theory" or "rule" in law enforcement seems to be what they call the balloon effect.   If you push on a balloon, it changes shape and the air moves from the area of pressure to other areas.   Crime is said to be the same way.  If they fix the background check system, there will be a few arrests, then the thugs will wise up and stop trying to buy from FFLs and acquire weapons another way.   That means more targeting of public databases of gun owners for theft, among other things.....

 

Its depressing.  Doing nothing is no answer unless you want a wild west type country where the people "handle" the criminals.   But anything short of an entire army of cops yields the balloon effect and has little net effect on crime.  Just this week an article noted that bank robberies were down --- because its safer and more profitable to steal online right now and bank robbers keep getting caught and stuff.  

 

So none of this background stuff is going to make any difference really.  The thugs will get the weapons, somehow.  All these new laws and rules and enforcement will do is make the "how, when, where" change places.

[battleop]

For one thing, FFLs have to file a separate form for 2 or more handguns bought by same person in a week.

 

TX, AZ, and NM have to also separately report 2 or more semi-auto rifles over .22 in a week.

 

- OS

 

I can't say this has ever been a problem for me.  I only wish I had enough extra cash to buy 2 or more guns per week.  :)

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The problem with the survey you mentioned is that they were felons, to begin with. I'd rather do something like dump a

non working law since it only presumes guilt over innocence, anyway. I'm just tired of submitting.

 

Besides, cops don't have that duty to protect, like they used to. Maybe if that changed back, I would change my mind,

but that isn't any more likely than anything else. The balloon effect is going to occur, especially if they keep on creating

a larger balloon by creating more criminals.

[battleop]

 

Yes This is a great idea and I strongly
support it. Why not go one step further and eliminate the gun shop owners by
making said data base check available to everyone? A toll free number or
website and you get a simple Go No Go ruling. That way there are no transfer
fees. The NICS fees go away and there are no gun records to be kept.

 

 

 

I had an approval put on hold when I had to leave the gun shop and come back
later. He ran the approval again despite my having been approved just an hour
before. He said they had to because" you could have committed a crime
while you were gone.' So I don't think you will get a blanket approval set up.
I personally like the HCP being used as a prior approval but again I don't see
it happening.

 

.

 

 

Create a system where you can go to a .gov website and enter the buyer's information which will return just a YES or NO and a transaction number.  That way a buyer and seller can conduct a Face to Face transaction without the need for an FFL.   The .gov website would be allowed to collect no more than Age/Sex/State after the transaction is complete.   This background check would OPTIONAL but the seller and buyer must take on some responsibility.   If the buyer or seller is committing a crime in this transaction they could be held liable, i.e. selling a gun to a felon or mentally defective person.  If they use the website and retain the transaction number then they are in the clear because the YES/NO is on the .gov site not the individual.  This would mostly be used in stranger to stranger transactions.   Since it is an optional system you would be free to transfer guns between friends and family members that you know well without using the system. 

 

This system would not replace what is currently covered under a back ground check like buying from an FFL or buying online.  Those transactions would remain the same.

 

There should be a basic and premium service.  The basic service is a website with a YES/NO and transaction number.  The premium service would include the basic plus retention of your transaction numbers and iphone/ipad/android apps and some other features.     

 

Most importantly there has to be provisions to make sure the data base is accurate and includes a process to appeal denials.   Make sure that mental health, criminal records, etc are included in the database.

[Dolomite_supafly]

I don't think FFL's should report the gun at the time the background check is done. Added to the form after the approval, yes, for his own record keeping.

 

I also believe the lion's share of guns that are bought by those who are not allowed to have them come from "innocent" people who have no clue they are selling to people who are not allowed to own them. I have seen it myself a number of times when I was walking around the show with a gun for sale. I mention signing a bill of sale or having it transferred on my dime and they say they can't. I have even had one be completely honest and tell me he can't buy a gun but he would pay extra if I would sell it to him "no questions asked". I didn't because of the red flag but it happens all the time.

 

Don't believe me. Next time anyone is at the show with a gun for sale ask the buyer if they would mind having a dealer transfer it. 

 

The problem is that criminals are being lumped in with the law abiding gun owners. We need to figure out a way to distance ourselves from that. Unfortunately, even on here, we hear of gun owners saying convicted felons or the violent should be allowed to own guns and I disagree. And a background on an individual, without reporting what was bought, is one way we can distance ourselves.

 

But like I said there is no easy solution to the problem. Just trying to discuss things rather than just shut down and hope for the best.

 

Dolomite

[1gewehr]

Remember what the road to Hell is paved with? 

When I was young, I remember going with my Grandfather to a hardware store and he bought a .22 Remington 66.  Cash and a handshake and we took it home. 

In 1968, they told us that requiring dealers to have to transfer guns across state lines and making us fill out the old yellow 4473 would keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  It didn't.

In 1994, they said that the NICS (and TICS) instant check system would be no imposition on gun buyers because it was 'instant', but would keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  It has been neither 'instant', nor useful at keeping guns away from criminals.

 

What you propose will still not keep guns out of the hands of the violent and insane.  Most convicted criminals get firearms from straw purchasers and theft.  That was equally true back in the 1930's (before ANY Federal gun laws), and has never changed.  As for the insane, I believe in a VERY difficult standard to get someone declared insane.  Governments have traditionally used the 'insanity' plea as a convenient way to remove dissidents.  Even our Federal, state, and local governments here in the US have done this in the past.  It used to be sufficient to have one psychiatrist as a professional opinion, along with two witnesses to strange behaviour to get someone committed.  Fortunately, that has changed.

 

Ideally, if someone is a violent criminal or violently insane, then they should not be walking around among the law-abiding.  But, since our court system sees fit to allow them to mingle with the rest of us, I would not be averse to some form of marking or permanent identification like a brand or tattoo.  If someone is too violent to be allowed weapons, then there should be some way for the rest of us to KNOW who they are!

[Dolomite_supafly]

Like I said it is better to discuss than to hope for the best.

I like the marking idea although it would never fly.

Dolomite

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Create a system where you can go to a .gov website and enter the buyer's information which will return just a YES or NO and a transaction number.  That way a buyer and seller can conduct a Face to Face transaction without the need for an FFL.   The .gov website would be allowed to collect no more than Age/Sex/State after the transaction is complete.   This background check would OPTIONAL but the seller and buyer must take on some responsibility.   If the buyer or seller is committing a crime in this transaction they could be held liable, i.e. selling a gun to a felon or mentally defective person.  If they use the website and retain the transaction number then they are in the clear because the YES/NO is on the .gov site not the individual.  This would mostly be used in stranger to stranger transactions.   Since it is an optional system you would be free to transfer guns between friends and family members that you know well without using the system. 

 

This system would not replace what is currently covered under a back ground check like buying from an FFL or buying online.  Those transactions would remain the same.

 

There should be a basic and premium service.  The basic service is a website with a YES/NO and transaction number.  The premium service would include the basic plus retention of your transaction numbers and iphone/ipad/android apps and some other features.     

 

Most importantly there has to be provisions to make sure the data base is accurate and includes a process to appeal denials.   Make sure that mental health, criminal records, etc are included in the database.

If you go to a government website, you just tripped over the first problem. It's none of their business to begin with. The 2nd Amendment

doesn't make an exception for government anything.

The second problem is you just created a trail that can be followed. You also acknowledged the government's right to know and identify

you as a gun owner. That's something that I consider as only to be done voluntarily. Plus, you added another government program. :D

 

I remember exactly what 1gewehr mentioned. What has happened to crime since the very first gun control law went on the books?

Nothing. There is no reason to play this game with the Devil every time something happens.

 

All I can suggest is quit watching the news. Maybe then, all this talk about compromising your life away will cease.

[battleop]

If you go to a government website, you just tripped over the first problem. It's none of their business to begin with. The 2nd Amendment

doesn't make an exception for government anything.

The second problem is you just created a trail that can be followed. You also acknowledged the government's right to know and identify

you as a gun owner. That's something that I consider as only to be done voluntarily. Plus, you added another government program. :D

 

I remember exactly what 1gewehr mentioned. What has happened to crime since the very first gun control law went on the books?

Nothing. There is no reason to play this game with the Devil every time something happens.

 

All I can suggest is quit watching the news. Maybe then, all this talk about compromising your life away will cease.

 

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Reynolds-Wrap-Aluminum-Foil-150-sf/21129702

 

Hurry before the sell out.

 

Seems you missed this part of my idea.....  "This background check would OPTIONAL"

Edited February 6, 2013 by battleop

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I didn't miss anything. You said it would remain the same for FFL transactions and would not replace it. why should there be a

check for one and not the other?

 

All I'm saying is a database of known convicted felons could be made available to FFL's and anyone else who cares to check

if they so choose. It is already against the law for a felon to possess a firearm. There doesn't need to be a burden placed on

you or I. That burden should be on the government. The gun is not the problem, but the criminal using it in a crime is. If you

want to check on someone's eligibility, that should be up to you to do that, not me, or anyone else. An FFL shouldn't have to

have that burden any more than anyone else. The background check was a compromise, to begin with, to settle an argument,

years ago, with the Brady bunch. It hasn't done anything in preventing crime.

 

Actually, I'm just trying to be consistent, whether or not that counts for much. I understand what your desire is, but it won't

affect crime, one way or another. Crime is caused by things other than tools. Human beings cause crime.

 

Got nothing to do with tinfoil, friend. :D

Edited February 6, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[mcurrier]

Mental Health: The Real Assault against the Second Amendment

Read more: http://patriotupdate.com/articles/mental-health-the-real-assault-against-the-second-amendment/#ixzz2KADL4j7p

 

Based on this article it seems reasonable that jumping on board the mental health argument could mean walking into a trap. Wait there is more.

 

“Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].”
 
“Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.”

The quotes you see above are from a document known as the 45 Declared Goals of the Communist Party which can be seen here .

http://rense.com/general32/americ.htm

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yeh, that one could be real nasty. Of course not many people know what was in those communist talking points, do they?

[DaveTN]

Everyone, on both sides, is having a hard time coming up with a solid solution because there isn't one.

It’s like a divorce; there are no winners; both sides are going to think they got screwed.
 

Background checks are here to stay, they are not going away no matter how much you hate it.

 Exactly, the current administration may not get what they want as far as banning guns; but they are going to get what they want as far as reasonable background checks.
 

Like I said it is better to discuss than to hope for the best.

I don’t have a problem with background checks, and I’ve even been denied. I would support new legislation if it means they stopped people with mental problems from getting a gun. However, that isn’t going to happen; neither side is going to support medical records being opened to the Feds.

They need to be free though. If they can't find local FFL's that want to do it for free; put transfer stations in other government buildings.

I also want serial numbers to continue to be checked. If my car is stolen cops watch for the car and license number, I want them doing the same thing if my gun is stolen.

Background checks are supposed to work now, yet we have a gun dealer that the state pulled his HCP saying he was a potential threat to the community; and the Feds gave him an FFL. How can anyone take a background check seriously?

[RED333]

The ones that should not have firearms WILL ALWAYS GET THEM.

There is nothing that can be done about it.

Now put those that commit firearm crime in jail and KEEP them there for a VERY LONG TIME is a fix I could live with.

There are laws on the books that are not enforced, and we need to make the Government do so.

The ones with mental problems that commit crime will eather commit Darwin gene cleaning.

When the bad guys see you go to jail and not ever get out, that part will fall off fast.

The other will never fix it self in our life time, it will take millions of years of gene cleaning to fix.

Edited February 7, 2013 by RED333

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Obamacare opened up all medical records to the federal government.

[gregintenn]

Gordon,

You aren't going to like my answer, but I wish to be honest, and the best way to do that is to come right out and say it.

 

Based on what I've read in your writings on her regarding your brother, he should not be walking around in society where he could buy a gun. He needs to be in prison for attempted murder, or a much better situation would be for him to be receiving treatment in an instution.

 

Mental illness is a condition that doesn't seem to get the attention and treatment that physical illness gets. I would like to see more time, money, and attention directed at helping these people rather than trying to regulate anything they might hurt themselves or others with when left untreated.

 

I've used your brother for an example, only because he happened to be the example in the original post. Please do not take this post as a slam against yourself or your family.

 

I've seen very few instances where punishing everyone for the errors of a few was productive.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It’s like a divorce; there are no winners; both sides are going to think they got screwed.
  Exactly, the current administration may not get what they want as far as banning guns; but they are going to get what they want as far as reasonable background checks.
 I don’t have a problem with background checks, and I’ve even been denied. I would support new legislation if it means they stopped people with mental problems from getting a gun. However, that isn’t going to happen; neither side is going to support medical records being opened to the Feds.

They need to be free though. If they can't find local FFL's that want to do it for free; put transfer stations in other government buildings.

I also want serial numbers to continue to be checked. If my car is stolen cops watch for the car and license number, I want them doing the same thing if my gun is stolen.

Background checks are supposed to work now, yet we have a gun dealer that the state pulled his HCP saying he was a potential threat to the community; and the Feds gave him an FFL. How can anyone take a background check seriously?

Yeh, answer your own question, DaveTN. How can anyone take a background check seriously for your reason and when nothing

is accomplished in the way of crime prevention, which will never happen? If you think they should be free, and expect to see them

in a government building, figure out how to sell that to the Legislature.

 

As it stands now, American citizens are screwed every time a law passes that does nothing, like some new background check. If

you want to do a background check, you could always call the FBI NICS system, couldn't you? Even the TBI will perform background

checks for you. But something for nothing won't pass the legislature any more than both sides getting less screwed.

 

The burden of my being the responsible party if the gun gets sold to a criminal is wrong and leads to further criminalization of the

wrong party, whether it be an FFL or an individual. Goes against the grain of the Constitution. But when did that ever bother some

folks?

[Guest PapaB]

Something else that would help, albeit after the fact, is a law like Florida has. Marco Rubio, in an interview I saw recently, said it's called 10, 20, life. Mandatory sentencing no matter if it's 1st offence or 50th. Commit a crime with a gun on your person, 10 years. Pull a gun during a crime, 20 years. Use a gun during a crime, life. Period.

 

The real solution is to build more jails and prisons, then retrain judges as to what cruel and unusual punishment really is. The Founding Fathers would be dumbfounded by the idiotic definition of cruel and unusual in practise today. It was never intended to include elective surgery (including sex changes), entertainment opportunities, release of prisoners if it got a little crowded, etc. It should be crowded (but not to the point of sanitation problems), void of college degrees at the taxpayers expense (but not basic education) and should include requiring work to reduce the cost of confinement.

 

Just my :2cents: .

[Guest PapaB]

Mental Health: The Real Assault against the Second Amendment

Read more: http://patriotupdate.com/articles/mental-health-the-real-assault-against-the-second-amendment/#ixzz2KADL4j7p

 

Based on this article it seems reasonable that jumping on board the mental health argument could mean walking into a trap. Wait there is more.

 

“Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].”
 
“Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.”

The quotes you see above are from a document known as the 45 Declared Goals of the Communist Party which can be seen here .

http://rense.com/general32/americ.htm

 

That article was the most convoluted attempt to make a bad point that I've ever seen. Trying to tie those things to the gun control debate is ridiculous. The gun debate is about getting the mentally ill in the NICS database. This statement from the article is a joke:

 

When you purchase a firearm through a federally licensed dealer they are required to ask if you have ever been adjudicated mentally deficient by a court of law. Like most gun control laws the real problem we have here is a failure to enforce existing laws.

Bold lettering is my accent.

That would work great if those banned from owning a gun were always honest.

 

Most of that article tried to make it look like we could inadvertantly empower the gov't to do something bad. Mental health laws can already be used for coercive control over anyone the gov't wants to use them against. The article also set up the false premise that "This is an issue that needs to be examined carefully as the mental health profession is dominated mainly by liberals who are practicing a school of thought that originated in Frankfurt Germany near the end of WWII." Wrong! The truth is that the mental health profession is dominated mainly by liberals who are practicing from a wide variety of schools of thought, originating long before WW2, many of which are at odds with each other.

 

The threat is always there for the gov't to overstep but this article makes it sound much more nefarious and imminent than it has ever been. The gun control debate will have no effect on it.

 

Is it just me or have I been spending a lot of time on a soapbox lately?

Edited February 7, 2013 by PapaB

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That article was the most convoluted attempt to make a bad point that I've ever seen. Trying to tie those things to the gun control debate is ridiculous. The gun debate is about getting the mentally ill in the NICS database. This statement from the article is a joke:

 

Bold lettering is my accent.

That would work great if those banned from owning a gun were always honest.

 

Most of that article tried to make it look like we could inadvertantly empower the gov't to do something bad. Mental health laws can already be used for coercive control over anyone the gov't wants to use them against. The article also set up the false premise that "This is an issue that needs to be examined carefully as the mental health profession is dominated mainly by liberals who are practicing a school of thought that originated in Frankfurt Germany near the end of WWII." Wrong! The truth is that the mental health profession is dominated mainly by liberals who are practicing from a wide variety of schools of thought, originating long before WW2, many of which are at odds with each other.

 

The threat is always there for the gov't to overstep but this article makes it sound much more nefarious and imminent than it has ever been. The gun control debate will have no effect on it.

 

Is it just me or have I been spending a lot of time on a soapbox lately?

No, I have. You can keep it up :D

Edited February 7, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I said that, PapaB, because evidently I can't get my point across to folks about compromise. They think it's the only way to

get something done, when it's the worse way. Your points are well made, especially about the mental health angle, and

treating the background check as the pariah it is. I think our main problem is how people tend to rationalize away their

principles, sometimes without even knowing it. I guess so many people have been programmed away from other ways of

reasoning.

 

I like the way you put things. I tend to ramble. Yeh, I admit it. :D

[Guest ThePunisher]

Haven't we learned anything the last 70 years when it comes to compromising with the communist. The commies just want to continue their power grab, and will always be dishonest in any kind of negotiations when it comes to advancing their cause.