Interesting article from the Tennessean

[billyscott]

Worth a read.

 

 

 

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20130401/NEWS21/304010036?nclick_check=1

[kieefer]

The state had a flood of background checks to run in the past two months because of worries that new gun legislation might restrict certain semi-automatic rifles. Dodson said the volume made background checks even more of a problem.

The TBI said it dealt well with the increase in gun sales, which saw jumps after Obama was elected in 2008, after he was re-elected in 2012 and after the Newtown shootings. The agency said it will be able to handle additional increases if universal background checks pass.

I'd just write it off, the TBI guys are swamped as expected.

[RobertNashville]

This is the article Brian said he was going to be writing...took a while to come out!

 

I think he dealt with the subject pretty well overall...I also find it pretty irritating that Tennessee's rejection rate is more than twice the national average but that doesn't seem to bother anyone at TBI.

 

One would think that they would be trying to be better than other states, not, apparently, satisfied to be so far behind in having accurate records.

Edited April 2, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Volzfan]

Glad to have never been denied so far but it would not surprise me even though the only thing on my record is a couple of speding tickets.

[LCPfraTN]

The article infers that the National Shooting Sports Foundation now supports the universal background check effort. I looked on their website and I don't see where they have come out in support of UBC, so I wonder if this is Brian's sad attempt at an April Fool's joke. :shake:  

[thundersnow]

“Waiting on the final outcome of an appeal might be an inconvenience on a small percentage of individuals,” Helm said, “but that outweighs the risk of releasing a firearm to someone who is ineligible to purchase one.”

DOWNPLAY DOWNPLAY DOWNPLAY. Could you imagine the workload put on the system the most folks agree works marginally now? None of the legislation pays any attention to that aspect. It would be useful to a legislator to have information to quantify the expected load increase, and as taking a proactive step work towards improving/simplifying the system.

[Worriedman]

The article infers that the National Shooting Sports Foundation now supports the universal background check effort. I looked on their website and I don't see where they have come out in support of UBC, so I wonder if this is Brian's sad attempt at an April Fool's joke. :shake:  

 

I too would like to see where the NSSF supports the universal background checks. 

[ted]

The article infers that the National Shooting Sports Foundation now supports the universal background check effort. I looked on their website and I don't see where they have come out in support of UBC, so I wonder if this is Brian's sad attempt at an April Fool's joke. :shake:

found it yep it was said watch the vid but it did not show him saying it but the news caster did after the interview he only stated access to firearms as meaning locked up note the sign in the background of the vid some how I think this was twisted around http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57576455/gun-trade-group-chief-focus-should-be-on-limiting-access-to-firearms/ Edited April 2, 2013 by ted

[JayC]

The bigger issue is the false positive rate is well over 90%.

 

This is the article Brian said he was going to be writing...took a while to come out!

 

I think he dealt with the subject pretty well overall...I also find it pretty irritating that Tennessee's rejection rate is more than twice the national average but that doesn't seem to bother anyone at TBI.

 

One would think that they would be trying to be better than other states, not, apparently, satisfied to be so far behind in having accurate records.

 

[Guest PapaB]

When I read this I was reminded of the line from Macbeth that mentioned "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

 

There's no real explanation for the excessive rejections. It mentions records not being as up to date as possible but doesn't question how that would justify such inconsistent results. Maybe you'll get rejected, maybe you won't, toss a coin each time.

 

It also fails to ask why the results should be acceptable when they rake in $10 for the service. According to the article, in 2010 they rejected 12,728 requests. At the stated rate of 4.3% that means they ran 296,000 requests for an income of 2.96 million dollars.

 

They also downplayed the high rate of rejection by stating it was "more than twice the national average of 1.5%". Last time I checked, 4.3 was nearly 3 times the size of 1.5, not simply more than twice.

 

After looking at this from the perspective of the general public and from my own as a gun owner, I don't see what the purpose of the article was. I can't see where either group learned anything worthwhile.

 

I'm still reminded of that line from Macbeth.

[hipower]

On a lighter note, did you see the walls and inventory in The Armory? Seems that he has some pretty sought after items in stock.

[Worriedman]

I get this from the NSSF web site, seems quite a stretch to intimate that they (NSSF) support private sale background check requirements.

 

“The concept of universal background checks sounds appealing on the surface, but the details involved in what actually would be required on the part of firearms retailers to make it work are quite another matter,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel. “In fact, the obligations and burdens that would be put in place could be overwhelming for many of those who would be called upon to carry them out. It is unfair to call upon private companies, many of them quite small and with limited personnel, to conduct what essentially would be a function of government.”

 

I had a nice conversation with their lead council this AM, I suspect that the Tennessean and our friend Mr. Haas will be receiving some communication from that quarter shortly.

Edited April 2, 2013 by Worriedman

[RobertNashville]

Regardless of whether the NSSF is for or against universal background checks; I think most organizations (or at least the biggest ones) are either going to be for it or at least, not oppose it.

 

If surveys can be believed most "firearm owners" either don't see BG checks as an infringement or don't care much one way or the other and with that kind of luck-luster attitude I don't see the big organizatiosn fighting on this issue much and may well offer it up as a "compromise" to avoid other infringements that Obama wants.

[Worriedman]

They (government) will not be able to achieve their goals of universal registration without universal background checks. The low information types who agree to give up this last vestige of Rights will see the instant regulation which will lead to confiscation shortly after the government can force registration.

 

I believe that unless we push back against this initiative, private ownership of firearms by the general non-military or police is doomed.

[dcloudy777]

Tennessee desperately needs to follow other states who waive the background check requirement for HCP holders.  That would eliminate a large part of the TICS workload. 

[JayC]

Or better yet, have the HCP cover NICS checks, and completely do away with the make work TICS program that just happens to violate the TN Constitution :)

 

Tennessee desperately needs to follow other states who waive the background check requirement for HCP holders.  That would eliminate a large part of the TICS workload. 

[RobertNashville]

They (government) will not be able to achieve their goals of universal registration without universal background checks. The low information types who agree to give up this last vestige of Rights will see the instant regulation which will lead to confiscation shortly after the government can force registration.

 

I believe that unless we push back against this initiative, private ownership of firearms by the general non-military or police is doomed.

 

I'm not disagreeing (in case you think I was)...just making an observaton that universal background checks is the one change most likely to get through (in my opinion) of all the stuff being proposed.

 

I think the above is trure for reasons I cited earleir; 1) being that many firearm "owners/enthusiasts" don't see background checks as a big deal (for any number of reasons) and 2) because organizations like the NRA, etc will "give in" on that issue as a compromise to keep worse infringements from getting passed.

 

Most of us know that background checks do absolutely nothing to prevent "gun crime" or "gun violance"; at least not in any perceptible percentage - it's one of those "feel good" laws that make people feel like they are doing something positive to keep guns out of the hands of criminals...and they've been around long enough now that people are used to the process and don't relaly care if we have the background checks or not.

[LCPfraTN]

I'm going to disagree that the interested parties will completely give in on the UBC issue. If anything does get passed into law concerning increased background checks, it will likely not require centralized record keeping and it probably also include exemptions for transactions among family members and perhaps even HCP holders.

 

I was reminded tonight how the records maintained by dealers on Form 4473 could be misused when I was watching a rerun of the original "Red Dawn" movie. One of the first things that the invaders went after were the 4473 forms at the local sporting goods stores so they could determine who the gun owners were.   

[LCPfraTN]

I get this from the NSSF web site, seems quite a stretch to intimate that they (NSSF) support private sale background check requirements.

 

 

I had a nice conversation with their lead council this AM, I suspect that the Tennessean and our friend Mr. Haas will be receiving some communication from that quarter shortly.

 

Yes, I think Mr. Haas needs to correct his statement...unfortunately the correction, if there is one, will probably be posted in some remote section of the paper and won't be corrected in the electronic version of the article...but I could be wrong.

[Worriedman]

Received this today as an "Alert" from the NSSF:

 

Senate to Vote on Firearms-Related Legislation This Week

 

 

The U.S. Senate is poised to take up consideration of firearms legislation as early as this week. While Senate leadership is still determining exactly what legislative language to bring to the floor for a vote, we do know Sen. Feinstein (D-Calif.) will offer an amendment to ban modern sporting rifles, the most popular rifles being sold in America, and factory-standard magazines.

 

Another anti-gun senator, New York's Chuck Schumer, is pushing to require so-called "Universal Background Checks" on all private transfers that the Justice Department says requires national registration and exposes firearms retailers to liability and burdensome and costly record keeping requirements.

 

 

 

Now is the time to for your voice to be heard on Capitol Hill!

 

Call your U.S. senators at 202-224 3121, and tell them to VOTE NO on Feinstein's gun ban amendment and on any bill that requires "Universal Background Checks

 

Funny, does not seem that the NSSF is supporting "Universal Background Check".