Idea regarding background checks

[Jonnin]

Then we add them. Those that have a mental defect, as determined by a doctor, that affect judgement and/or have shown to be violent should be added. I am not worried about those who are depressed, have an anxiety disorder or even PTSD unless it has been determined to affect judgement and/or be violent. The single common denominator in all the mass killings have been the mental state of the killer.

 

Just as a criminal, who is a danger to the public, has no expectation of privacy the same should hold true for the mentally ill who are a danger to the public. Once the mentally ill are found to be a threat to society their right to privacy, as it relates to firearm ownership, should be gone. Their mental illness should be made available to those who manage the background check system.

 

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

 

As much as I hate to say it I would rather have a background, done like I described earlier, than have my guns legislatively neutered. By background I mean done once when you get your ID/DL then again only when you renew your ID/DL and not every time you purchase. This would eliminate a lot of extra work for the FFL's, eliminate the wait we sometimes have to go through as well as the $10 TICs fee every time you have a background done.

 

I realize nothing is going to be perfect and honestly I would love to be able to buy ANY firearm I want without a background check. But the background checks are here to stay so why not do it once every 4 years rather than once every few months. Just from a fiscal standpoint it is good for the gun owner and the FFL.

 

Dolomite

 

I have mixed feelings about this.  While, like every other person with any sense, I would see a way to prevent the violently mentally ill from getting at any sort of weapons (my uncle did a number with a hacksaw, its aint just guns), I simply DO NOT TRUST any psych doctors.  NONE of them.  

 

First you have the tinfoil hat crap: we gonna submit all buyers to a mental exam or just work off the folks that have been to the doctors and been diagnosed?  If all buyers get put in (and its been proposed, was that part of the NY overhaul??)  what if the doctor is simply anti-gun?  How do you appeal it once some jerk decides no one should have a gun and puts you in the system out of spite? How do you prove you are sane in a field where the doctors use as much voodoo as anything else to make diagnoses?

 

Then you have the lines to draw.  Is a guy who can be trusted with a bazooka in iraq to be denied a pistol forever in the states when he gets home because he is having trouble adjusting?  Do we wait until he strangles someone first to decide?  Lot of servicemen have a lot of issues when they get home, fitting in, learning how to do without orders, finding a job, dealing with tons of stuff.  Not all of it is a violent form of PTSD, some (many) of the soldiers are for a short time just regular stressed or depressed.

 

Then there is just the entire mental health system.  These are the same idiots that prescribe harmful meds to young kids when the only thing "wrong" with the kid is being bored with, lets face it, a dull education system.  If that is "medicine" and these are "doctors" you can keep them the hell away from me.

[JWC]

The idea sounds somewhat reasonable. but in the spirit of compromise they're always spoutin' off about I would only somewhat agree to the infringement if we got something good in return. like removal of suppressors from NFA and a Firearms Act of 2013 that states absolutely no new "gun control" legislation, fees, taxes, or orders related to firearms or ammo or components... forever. Be nice to not make as much racket and not fret about this crap again for the rest of mine or my kid's lifetimes.

[Guest cardcutter]

I got to thinking and everyone I know or talk to do not want background checks because it is a defacto registration. That is because the guns you buy are listed on your background and their serial numbers are checked at the same time as you. And I suspect they keep records now even though they deny it.

 

What would you think if the background check did not list the firearm, how many or what type you bought?

 

Basically you walk in and if you decide you want to buy a firearm you have a background check completed before picking out any firearms. Then after you pass you are allowed to pick out whatever gun you want and pay for it with no reporting of what you bought to the background check system. That way there is no serial number tied to you on a national level. The FFL will keep a record, like they do now, of the firearm info and who bought it but it will only be stored locally. The firearm information will only be added to the locally stored record after the background has been completed.

 

For face to face transactions the seller and buyer go to a FFL. The FFL completes a background on the buyer then the seller and buyer exchange the weapon without the FFL ever inspecting the weapon.

 

For face to face transactions it must not cost the buyer or seller anything. But for a person buying a gun in the shop's inventory the same background fees as now.

 

As a consequence of this make 18 the age limit for all guns, not just rifles.

 

For those of you who don't know I do have a personal stake in this. I have a metally ill brother who is also a heavy drug user. He has tried to kill my family and I in the past yet he still gets firearms regularly.

 

Dolomite

 

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.

 

 

It would not be hard at all to tie your DL information to your background check information. Link the two and when you renew your DL there is an endorsement. And with that endorsement you can walk in and buy ANY firearm without going through a background check. You would still fill out the same paperwork except the FFL would not need to spend 15 minutes uploading your information or 5 minutes making that call. They just verify your information matches the form and that you have the endorsement. Seems like it would be a win for the FFL's.

 

Criminals are going to be criminals but if you look back at all the "mass" shooters they have all had mental issues. The check would be more about keeping the firearms out of those who have proven mental problems.

 

Dolomite

 

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.

.

[peejman]

A friend suggested a similar idea as a possible solution to the proclaimed "gun show loop hole".  You must pass a background check to gain entry into the show and you get a wrist band.  The cost would be part of the "cover charge".  Then even if you wanted to sell outside the show, you have ready access to a background check. 

 

What you're proposing reaches a bit further and I don't disagree with it in principle.  However, I do share the opinion that its nothing more than a tax.  The SCOTUS ruled Obamacare was a tax and hence illegal, how is this different?. 

[Oh Shoot]

....What you're proposing reaches a bit further and I don't disagree with it in principle.  However, I do share the opinion that its nothing more than a tax.  The SCOTUS ruled Obamacare was a tax and hence illegal, how is this different?. 

 

You have that backwards. Obamacare was ruled constitutional and Roberts wrote that the individual mandate is a tax, which is the only way it is constitutional.

 

- OS

Edited February 5, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[peejman]

You have that backwards. Obamacare was ruled constitutional and Roberts wrote that the individual mandate is a tax, which is the only way it is constitutional.

 

- OS

 

 

I was close...

[mcurrier]

All of this talk is just an attempt to help liberals with a pretend solution that they are not really looking for.  They may use the words that make it sound like they are looking for a way to "stop" crazy shooters, or to make things "safer" for everyone...but they DON'T really give a flying damn about any of that.  Those are just buzzwords that they use to make themselves appear all compassionate and caring while they enlist our help in moving their chess piece one move closer to capturing our king.  It's all about the end result (total all-out bans and confiscation), and all the rest is just smoke and mirrors to get there.  As I've been saying for decades now, "reaching across the aisle" only gets your arm ripped off by the alligator on the other side.  When they use the word "compromise" that means that our side gets to bend over and take it up the a__, while their side gives up N-O-T-H-I-N-G!!!

 

 

(where is spell-check?  I'm tired of editing my posts)

Edited February 5, 2013 by mcurrier

[Dolomite_supafly]

If the background checks were free would it still be a tax?

Dolomite

[Jonnin]

If the background checks were free would it still be a tax?

Dolomite

Nope.  But for person to person sales, it also has to be a free transfer.  I am not sure how the FFL stuff works, but it seems like for me to sell you a gun using a shop's background check, the shop has to take possession of the gun, log it in, and charge you 20 bucks for that "service".   Whatever the end result, if it is not free, people will ignore it just over the costs alone. 

[Guest 6.8 AR]

How about this? The government needs to keep track of those felons(criminals) and leave us law abiding citizens alone with all this nonsensical

background check compromise some of you seem to think will work. If they (the government) wants to check on anything, it should quit worrying

on corraling us citizens, who pay for their privilege of serving us, to do their job and worry more about how they treat criminals, instead of creating

more criminals out of us.

All you are doing by giving in to this is more of something for them to rule over us with. Whatever happened to privacy? Instead of compromising,

we should be fighting this crap.

No Compromise!

[peejman]

If the background checks were free would it still be a tax?

Dolomite

 

 

Only if any individual can call in to perform the check.  If you make a licensee do it, someone would have to pay for it.  Even if they set up some sort of flat rate system... $10ea... that the government would reimburse the licensee.  That $10 is still our tax money. 

[c.a.willard]

Ive said this before, I would not necessarily be opposed to some form of FOID that would waive the background check required and allow private individuals to transfer among themselfs.  It would meet the intent of universal background checks and make the transfer process a little easier.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You don't need a FOID. All you need is what you have, like in Texas. Your carry permit should suffice, if you're to have any law at all.

Nothing else is necessary, if that should even be necessary. It's bad enough that you have to identify yourself as a firearms owner.

That should be nobody's business but yours.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Instead of compromising a system that is broke before it is started(background check), how about those real criminals being checked?

How about those laws preventing convicted criminals from possessing guns being enforced? How about those laws the ACLU had thrown

out that did in mental health care for those who really need it? How about leaving my ass alone? I haven't killed anyone. I haven't been

convicted of a crime. Why should I have to distance myself, as a gun owner, from the convicted felon, when it should be the other way around?

 

When you allow one law to be passed that has no basis in constitutionality, that restricts your rights, that makes you essentially a criminal-in-

waiting, you are causing more of a problem than you think you are fixing. All this talk about compromise does is let someone else know you

are wiling to give up your principles in favor of a jail cell, eventually. Compromise your own principles, not mine, thank you. All your noble

attempts at compromise will give you is more tyranny.

 

The Founders of this country were worried enough to include it in the Bill of Rights to keep it from being bastardized away. We let them

down when we let the first law restricting it happen. The ball's on our court to get rid of all these laws, which some of you say will never be

nullified. You had better start resetting your own mindset and change your way of thinking before it is too late. All it tells me is atruism runs

rampant among too many people in the gun owning community when they should be using reason and logic in their decision making.

[Jonnin]

Only if any individual can call in to perform the check.  If you make a licensee do it, someone would have to pay for it.  Even if they set up some sort of flat rate system... $10ea... that the government would reimburse the licensee.  That $10 is still our tax money. 

 

Then for the first time in 75 years tax money would be spent on something productive.

[daddyo]

How about this? The government needs to keep track of those felons(criminals) and leave us law abiding citizens alone with all this nonsensical

background check compromise some of you seem to think will work. If they (the government) wants to check on anything, it should quit worrying

on corraling us citizens, who pay for their privilege of serving us, to do their job and worry more about how they treat criminals, instead of creating

more criminals out of us.

All you are doing by giving in to this is more of something for them to rule over us with. Whatever happened to privacy? Instead of compromising,

we should be fighting this crap.

No Compromise!

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

TTTTTHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

[Dolomite_supafly]

Instead of compromising a system that is broke before it is started(background check), how about those real criminals being checked?

How about those laws preventing convicted criminals from possessing guns being enforced? How about those laws the ACLU had thrown

out that did in mental health care for those who really need it? How about leaving my ass alone? I haven't killed anyone. I haven't been

convicted of a crime. Why should I have to distance myself, as a gun owner, from the convicted felon, when it should be the other way around?

 

When you allow one law to be passed that has no basis in constitutionality, that restricts your rights, that makes you essentially a criminal-in-

waiting, you are causing more of a problem than you think you are fixing. All this talk about compromise does is let someone else know you

are wiling to give up your principles in favor of a jail cell, eventually. Compromise your own principles, not mine, thank you. All your noble

attempts at compromise will give you is more tyranny.

 

The Founders of this country were worried enough to include it in the Bill of Rights to keep it from being bastardized away. We let them

down when we let the first law restricting it happen. The ball's on our court to get rid of all these laws, which some of you say will never be

nullified. You had better start resetting your own mindset and change your way of thinking before it is too late. All it tells me is atruism runs

rampant among too many people in the gun owning community when they should be using reason and logic in their decision making.

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

 

So which would you rather have? A check that allows you to buy as many guns annonymously or a background check on every single firearm you buy? I guarantee they do keep track of who buys what right now. And "neither" is not the answer because backgrounds are here to stay.

 

In what I propsed the government would have no clue what you bought, only verifying previously by days or weeks that you are not a criminal or mental case. Other states do is using their HCP as criteria and it works well for gun owners. Why would it be a bad thing for us to be able to buy a firearm without a background check when you buy that firearm.

 

Just our of curiosity, how do you propose to make sure the person you personally sell a gun to isn't a criminal or a mental case? My brother, as an example, seemed like a normal person until he went crazy and tried to kill us. And he recently injured our mother during one of his "breaks". And he continues to be able to get guns from individuals. He meets all four conditions that restrict him from owning guns yet he still is able to get them from law abiding citizens.

 

Dolomite

[mcurrier]

There's no " annonymously " about it. So they don't have a specific model linked to your name... they still know that you own something, so it's still a registration of sorts.

[Dolomite_supafly]

As a endorsement on a license it doesn't mean anything. I know several women who have HCP's yet don't own a gun. If you pass the background at the time you get your ID/DL it is an endorsement. Then you walk into a shop, show your license with an endorsement, buy your gun without a call being made or an upload on the internet.

 

Dolomite

[Guest 6.8 AR]

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

 

So which would you rather have? A check that allows you to buy as many guns annonymously or a background check on every single firearm you buy? I guarantee they do keep track of who buys what right now. And "neither" is not the answer because backgrounds are here to stay.

 

In what I propsed the government would have no clue what you bought, only verifying previously by days or weeks that you are not a criminal or mental case. Other states do is using their HCP as criteria and it works well for gun owners. Why would it be a bad thing for us to be able to buy a firearm without a background check when you buy that firearm.

 

Just our of curiosity, how do you propose to make sure the person you personally sell a gun to isn't a criminal or a mental case? My brother, as an example, seemed like a normal person until he went crazy and tried to kill us. And he recently injured our mother during one of his "breaks". And he continues to be able to get guns from individuals. He meets all four conditions that restrict him from owning guns yet he still is able to get them from law abiding citizens.

 

Dolomite

As long as you keep believing that you must be right. If I had a real choice, it would be for Texas and their carry permit being all that is required

to buy a weapon. I would much rather the dealer have access to a database of convicted felons at his disposal, and, when buying a weapon, he

could check to see if my name was on that database. The decision would be made based on what that database had on it, not some person

somewhere else who could decide whether or not he wanted to do his job that particular day. I hope you see the distinction between what I think

is acceptable and what you do. Yours is still based on the premise that one is guilty until proven innocent and mine the opposite, due to a

bureaucracy, and yours allows false negatives where mine requires due diligence on the government's part.

 

There is no way you are going to be able to stop someone from becoming crazy. No piece of legislation will stop what has happened to you and

your family, which I'm very sad to hear of your continued problems with that brother. Why isn't he in jail? 

[Dolomite_supafly]

Well then what about a database of those who CAN'T purchase and those not in the database have an endorsement on their ID/DL that allows them to buy without going through the current background check?

 

Dolomite

[Guest 6.8 AR]

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.

[RED333]

A FFL would not be doing a transfer between individuals, only a background check. There will be no paperwork filled out.

Or perhaps an endorsement on a DL that shows you are allowed to purchase without going through TICs. I know other states allow HCP holders to purchase without doing a background. And by all accounts it works well for everyone involved.

Dolomite

How ever getting everyone else to go along is a bit diff.

 

No background checks, period. Anything else is an infringement.

My feelings are the same, but it aint gona happen.

I want everthing repealed back to 1800 laws.

Edited February 6, 2013 by RED333

[Guest cardcutter]

The endorsement thing will never work. Here's why.

You get your license renewed. The next day you commit a felony and get caught. You get a suspended sentence but still have a felony conviction but you also still have the endorsement on your DL. As a convicted felon you cant legally purchase but the endorsement allows it.

They want an up to date check not something a year or two old.

I like the idea of an HCP being your endorsement but this is just to easily shot down.

I like the individually accessible check system with a simple Go/No GO reply. They don't know what you bought  and have no way of knowing . A simple hand written receipt would cover the seller legally.

[Dolomite_supafly]

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