Opinions wanted: Gun Background Checks.

[Recaster]

What does "shall not be infringed" mean?

All the restrictions on what type of arms that i may own, any licensing fee, any mandated safety classes or any other hoop that i must jump through, i believe, are infringements.

[I]"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."[/I]

[popper]

when the same socialists vote for background checked voting cards I might consider that card for legality to own a gun.

[TXGunNut]

Wow! Awesome thread. On the one hand I don't have a problem with "background checks" but at one time "universal healthcare" sounded like a good idea as well. I pay for my healthcare and that of at least one uninsured patient, I thought if everyone had healthcare ins it would lower my cost. So much for that idea. It's not the title of the bill that gets enforced when it becomes law, it's the language.
I've had my background checked many times, I've done more than a few in depth background checks. I don't have a problem with that until someone says "no". Do we know who that someone could be? A low-level bureaucrat? Your medical practitioner? Think about that.
On the other hand I have no doubt my name is on a master list of gun owners, so is yours. Gun registration just helps them figure out if you have any stashed away when they come to take them away.
I've changed my position on this issue. NO background checks. NO gun registration. NO more "compromises". If we have to fight to keep our rights then by golly they should have to fight to infringe upon them.

[clodhopper]

The devil is in the details, background checks will need to be done if you loan a gun to someone, if your guns are stored in your house and you have some one babysit your house while you are gone. If you teach marksmanship and loan a person a gun to use under your direct supervision.
Check out all the stuff in the bill.
The restrictions are much uglier than the sound byte.

[William Yanda]

The problem as I see it is any new laws that do not help prevent violent crimes are just feel good measures. If I thought that background checks would help with the murder rate or prevent 1 school shooting I'd be for them. I'm for no new legislation.

+1, what he said. Someone here quotes T Jefferson's statement to the effect that legislation is not the cure for evil. The gallows is the cure for evil and our present government does not have the stones to use the gallows.

[bob208]

there is no shuch thing as gun control lite. no matter how untntrusive it seams it is always just the begining. as stated it starts a list of owners it tracks all guns. what next the dealers start sharging more and more to do the transfer? and lets not forget the tax end. there would be sales tax then the income tax.

[sparky45]

I don't know what dealers in your area charge, but I have one in my community and he charges $50 and has for over a year and a half. They can charge whatever they want. I have purchased 7 guns during that year and a half and have saved $210 by using a different dealer in a smaller town near me. The Post in this thread that really captured my attention and admiration is #83, well worth digesting.

[Adam10mm]

I'm an FFL and charge $20 for firearms new or used. Suppressor transfers are $50. The other FFL in the next town over charges $30 for used, $50 for new, and $75 for suppressor transfers.

[SharpsShooter]

Give nothing! No background checks. No compromises. Not one stinking step further. The Second Amendment says nothing about "if".

The great compromise started be in 34. I don't know about y'all but I'm about compromised out. I enjoyed seeing the NFA rolled back

SS

[Awsar]

i wish the would worry about the real problem the criminal using guns illegaly.banning guns and intense back ground chks would be like banning cars for accident victims getting killed.next we will have to fill out an application for the purchase of a hammer because "they" kill people.
they really dont get it most bad guys dont legaly purchase guns therefore more laws will only hurt the law abiding citizen .

[45nut]

Either the right to self defense is God given and cannot be tampered with IE: infringed,,and everything to this point and beyond is certainly that.
Or

Its all bs and we are just slaves IE human resources to be harvested.

Now to me,, its never been within their jurisdiction but we have been brainwashed into giving consent to their power plays.

[montana_charlie]

I just read every post in this thread.
I was very surprised (read shocked) to see how many are okay with Universal Background Checks as proposed by the Democrats, this year. Having looked at a number of nationally-conducted polls, I see that a majority of Americans are answering in favor of them, but I assumed only a small percentage of gun owners (the selfish ones and the poorly-informed ones) were in that majority.

There were many posts in the five pages I just went through that screamed for an answer, but those answers were generally forthcoming as the thread grew. However, I just had to point this one out. I removed the username because that is not the point. the point is the mindset.

I'm okay with the universal background check. The possible creation of a new law that all firearms must be registered kinda sucks but how else can we keep guns out of the hands of people that should not have them ? These wacko shooters are going to continue and if nothing is done about it, we will eventually lose the right to own firearms ourselves.

The mindset is the same one which has plagued gun owners for decades.
They want to register handguns, the shotgunners don't care.
They want to ban 'assault rifles' the muzzleloaders don't care.
They want to restrict semi-automatics, the lever action people don't care.

This one says that 'registration of all firearms kinda sucks' but if somebody thinks that will help them locate wackos, that's okay ... as long as he can shoot his guns.
This ignores the fact (and it is a proven fact) that the day will come when it's his guns that they are after, this time.
And the fact that his guns will already be 'registered' ... well, that will 'kinda suck', won't it?

I was also surprised (read shocked) when Franklin Graham came out in favor of Universal Background Checks.
My shocked surprise was couched in three aspects of the announcement.

First, I presumed that Franklin Graham was more conservative than that. I don't know why, it was just my impression.
Secondly, I was surprised that he would take on any political posture during a debate as heated as this one is.
Obviously, I don't know the man as well as (I think) I knew his father.
And, thirdly, I assume that Reverend Graham leads too busy a life to have spent any appreciable time with guns. Therefore, I believe him to be somewhat ignorant of many aspects concerning them.

Anyway, his announcement seemed to need a reply so I sent hin this ...

Reverend Graham,

Since you have chosen to turn political by supporting 'universal background checks' for gun owners, I give you this as factual information.

It is said that the reason for universal background checks is to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people.

The issue is that ‘the wrong people’ (today) don’t go near a gun that requires a background check … and they STILL won’t if background checks become ‘universal’.

If they can’t find a gun on the black market, they will kill a cop or citizen and take one.

The current background check system is being utilized at barely 50% efficiency. Why not more? According to Biden, "they don’t have time" (his words) to prosecute law breakers who violate federal law by trying to defraud the NICS system.
They don't have time to use the currently collected data, but they want to increase that data load by (a claimed) 40%.
This makes no sense unless the data collection is to be used for an unstated purpose.

The ONLY thing that will change under a ‘universal’ system is the record keeping.

Having a fresh start in building a who-has-what-and-where-do-they-live database, Feinstein and her crowd will FINALLY have that list of ‘registered’ owners so they can start confiscation efforts whenever the time is right.

Read and heed, Sir. It IS the truth.



I feel that this message is also appropriate as my input to this discussion, but I have an addition only collected today.

In a news story on the radio about Biden, Bloomberg, and some Newtown 'families', the piece ended with mention that Harry Reid is currently saying that Universal Background Checks will probably not make it through the Senate due to the high number of Senators who are getting pressured to resist that measure.

I personally hope this proves to be true, and I also hope that those (here) who favor the measure are soundly disappointed.

CM

[shooterg]

Franklin Graham should know better. Used to be a Garand on the wall in his office. On many trips he took to deliver food in strange places he carried a 1911. In his youth he and a friend cut a tree down for a neighbor - with a 1919 !
Needs to remember to "render unto Caesar" only that which does not take away your God-given rights !

[Case Stuffer]

Simple fact is that good people do not use firearms to kill,rob,molest other good people unless by accident. There have been enough firearms laws on the books for decades ,some of which are the very first to be plea bargined away.

A carry permit rrequires a backgroud check and in many states having said carry permit exempts on from the standard X days waiting period for a handgun purchase. Many cities require completion of a traing class prior to issue of carry permit. Even with said carry permit sales thru dealers still require the filling out of forms which in effect is registration. By the way someone convited of a felony can lie on the form and it can not be used againt them in a court of law. Does this registration help law enforement to return stolen firearms to their rightful owners? If it does then why are so many firearms destroyed by law enforment ,could it be that same failure of the system which is suppose to keep uninsured and unlicenesed drives off of the roads?

Those who have little to no respect for others or their property will continue to ignore the law and pertty much does as they please.

I am 6 weeks away from having had a state carry permit for the past 50 years. It took many years for Geargia to go from an open carry only with a permit required for each handgun (even while hunting with a rifle or shotgun) to the present carry permit. IMO any new laws are just a step backwards and will in the end not reduce crimes commeted with firearms one bit.

During the past years I have had police to stop me (during open carry) request to see my carry permit and then proceed to run a check on the handgun. What did this serve? Logic says that if I did not legally own the firearm then I would not openly carry it and produce a carry permit.

Interesting perhaps side note ,during several of these checks the officer had not a clue how to safely handle a semi auto and I felt that they were placing others in danger by their actions.

One of my pet peeves are the gun shops which do not alow carry of a loaded handgun in their stores when the customer has a carry permit and in many case purchased the handgun from them.

[KCSO]

Add 25-50 dollars to every gun you purchase for paperwork to start with and then thnk about this as backdoor registration. It is simply more federal government involvment in your supposedly private life. And it won't do a darn thing because only honest people will come into a dealer to transfer their guns and the crooks willl do it in the same alley they have been doing it in for years. Oh wit, I'm sorry there are NO unregistered guns in Ney York are there???

[jcwit]

I do think there should be restrictions on those who are mentally unstable, no matter what the cause.

Now the problem arises as to who decides what "unstable" is.

That I have no answer for.

[country gent]

Does anyone besides the writers of these bills know what is acually in them, what they are intended to accomplish? Remeber Diane Fienstien on the health care bill we Have to pass it to know whats in it? Shouldnt you know what is being voted on before hand? All this legislation is is feel good restrict rights even more laws. Tsa searches and inspections dont violate the constitutions amendment against illegal un neccesary searches? The local sobriety check points arnt illegal searches? What suspician do they have when stopping every car on a road? If you turn off to avoid it they have a chase car to run you down here.... The scariest thing I have heard is, Im from the goverment and Im here to help.

[MT Gianni]

The real problem is they do not work. There was a shooting at Quantico recently, the shooter was staff. Do we disarm a Marine base so someone can work? Do we fire all LEO's that have had "counseling" with a Psychiatrist? Do we continue to send our young men and women into combat knowing that for some it has lifelong consequences?
Many of us who know or assume that we will pass with no problems might think for a minute that there is no real problem with them. My son was denied a firearm sale for 3 days because of someone with the same name and birthday as his only 6 years older living in the same county of under 100K. Anyone who has dealt with any form of governing body knows that mistakes will be made. When someone passes a check and shoots some one then all checks will need to become more stringent. Secondly, I do not believe a background check will ever show the future state of mind in a person.

[montana_charlie]

I do think there should be restrictions on those who are mentally unstable, no matter what the cause.

Now the problem arises as to who decides what "unstable" is.

The current NICS system has provisions for dealing with mental incompetence.
But, it is grossly underused.
The information is supposed to be submitted by the various states.
Of states that DO submit data, there is a group (can't remember how many but it's around 20) that has sent in (like) 44 submissions since the program started ... something like 4 states have sent in 1 submission ... and a number of states ignore the program entirely.

The NRA is fully aware of this underuse, and has the correct figures (that I am fuzzy on). That is their main argument against 'universal' checks.
Because it's obvious that the current system is not helping at all, there is really no logic in expanding it to include 40% more data that will ALSO not be used as intended.

The use that the 'new data' WILL be put to is what should concern all of us ... and I am speaking directly to those further up in this thread who said they are 'okay' with the universal checks.
Just because YOU personally wouldn't feel restricted ... perhaps because you don't expect to ever transfer a gun, anyway ... is not a good reason to support imposing that new infringement on the entire gun population.

That kind of selfish thinking got Zumbo kicked off of his magazine job and could earn a member a slot on somebody's ignore list.

(Not mine, though. I don't 'ignore' anybody. I want to know who among us is not really with us.)

CM

[Phoenix]

Well said

The current NICS system has provisions for dealing with mental incompetence.
But, it is grossly underused.
The information is supposed to be submitted by the various states.
Of states that DO submit data, there is a group (can't remember how many but it's around 20) that has sent in (like) 44 submissions since the program started ... something like 4 states have sent in 1 submission ... and a number of states ignore the program entirely.

The NRA is fully aware of this underuse, and has the correct figures (that I am fuzzy on). That is their main argument against 'universal' checks.
Because it's obvious that the current system is not helping at all, there is really no logic in expanding it to include 40% more data that will ALSO not be used as intended.

The use that the 'new data' WILL be put to is what should concern all of us ... and I am speaking directly to those further up in this thread who said they are 'okay' with the universal checks.
Just because YOU personally wouldn't feel restricted ... perhaps because you don't expect to ever transfer a gun, anyway ... is not a good reason to support imposing that new infringement on the entire gun population.

That kind of selfish thinking got Zumbo kicked off of his magazine job and could earn a member a slot on somebody's ignore list.

(Not mine, though. I don't 'ignore' anybody. I want to know who among us is not really with us.)

CM

I believe the use of 'mental stability' is a pandora's box that will NEVER lead to good things. you know that even if it started with people who are comitted more than 3 months. not only can that lead to unfair infringement but it will never stay at that criteria. Being comitted is not synonymous with violent. The problem with the mental health angle of this is it can be used for anyone.

If they start with "only those comitted for a multiple violent episodes. When a mass killing occurs with someone that had ADHD. They will complain the current restrictions are not good enough. It will creep like baby steps and eventually get the to "anyone who has been comitted against their will even if just for 48 hour observation. (this is alot easier that most think, it can happen to ANYONE)

NOONE, I repeat NOONE can be in charge of these decisions. NOONE can get this right. There will be countless people that are on the list and never allowed to own a gun for life. This is the slipperiest slope we will ever tread down. The previous slope was the elimination of "intent" being a requirement to convict. The burden was on the prosecution to at least show a hint of intent. Now that is not a requirement. People taking plea deals because they dont feel they have a choice for something they never intended. Writing a check for $500 or more that bounces is a felony federally and in most states. It is not hard to have such a thing happen to you without you wanting it. Maybe the wife bought something and didnt put it in the check register. Does that mean you should not own a gun for the rest of your life? I think not. Be careful what you wish for or you may someday be on the receiving side of the gun rights beat stick. The system is totally broken and most of the fixes are worse than the current system. The way it should be will never happen again.