Poll: Background Check Suggestion (Ending the "Gun Show Loophole" argument)

[gehrheart]

You realized they hanged people back then for stealing cows and horses right? Really the only "felons" with guns were drunken bar brawlers...so your arguement is a little flawed in that sense.

Guess that is all a matter of opinion.. I see no flaws.

. I'm not talking about selling firearms to coworkers, friends or friends of friends...these are people that you have a couple e-mails sent back and forth or an answer to your add in the Thrify Nickle.

..And?... dont see the problem myself.

I owned the gun, sold it to some one, no longer my responsibility, it now there's..

WHY!! am I to be held responsible for what some one else does with something I no longer have possession of??? I totally fail to get this logic...

 

[Old Dog]

So you would have private sellers FORCED to make this simple phone call? And what is going to convince them to do so? More laws? Sheesh. I just have prospective buyers show me a CPL and a WA driver license. The law states ONLY that one doesn't KNOWINGLY sell to a prohibited person.

Really the only "felons" with guns were drunken bar brawlers...so your arguement is a little flawed in that sense.

Um, I'm thinking that you may need to brush up on your American history.

 

[drshorter]

So you would have private sellers FORCED to make this simple phone call? And what is going to convince them to do so? More laws? Sheesh. I just have prospective buyers show me a CPL and a WA driver license. The law states ONLY that one doesn't KNOWINGLY sell to a prohibited person.

Um, I'm thinking that you may need to brush up on your American history.

Has anyone actually read this thread and kept up with it? Everyone keeps turning the OP's idea into a forced thing. He was suggesting an OPTION not a forcible thing. No new laws, no new regulations, just a simple suggestion damn people twist and turn everyones words around to make it seem like the left wing radicals are here.

 

[Old Dog]

Then how is his suggestion "closing the gun show loophole?" FFLs can only deliver to individuals on the same day without the waiting period IF the individual has a valid CPL. At any rate, the OP is proposing fixing something that isn't broken. Further, he's advocating that private sellers go beyond what is required by statute.

 

[Father of four]

I say no... Riot didnt say forced, but No...I dont like it. What if no information can be found out about a prospective buyer? Then what?

There are things in place ( Laws, LEO's, courts, judges, juries,etc...) to take care of the bad guy after he is caught. Not all bad guys are felons and not all firearm crimes are commented by bad guys.

I do not want any added restriction on our rights. There are far to many right now!

 

[Misterbill]

You still have the problem of a "Straw Buyer" buying the firearm and then handing it over to the felon.

Yeah, I have a problem with someone committing a serious federal crime for money. No kidding.


Listen: In Bills perfect world, we would be sentencing violent criminals to terms STARTING at ten years. After they get out, I would like to see their criminal records INVISIBLE to everyone but LE.

This is so they have a chance at a somewhat normal life. What we do now is brand them with a scarlet letter which limits them forever to menial labor, no matter WHAT they do after they get out. That's a recipe for continual crime, because we encourage criminal, highly-lucrative behavior from people we've just spent hundreds of thousands incarcerating.

From recidivism alone, we'd be better off paying every felon $20k a year tax free as long as they stayed crime free.

Our entire justice system needs an enema. It gets NOTHING right.

I want to hang the real bad guys as much as anyone else. The problem is that we give the benefit of the doubt to bad guys that NO ONE has any doubts about BEING bad guys, and hang every low-hanging fruit out there because it's easier and more politically palatable.

Until we, as a state deal with those facts, we're screwed.

 

[WIRED tactical]

I like the idea only as an option for people to call if they feel it's warranted. Kind of like checking hotgunz.com. NOT as a requirement by the state or federal government.

 

[oknow]

please do because he did not suggest a tax or making anything a requirement (or hoop) as you put it

(a one time back ground check for you )to make sure you have a good record, everyone on the planet had a good background at one point in their life so that one time bg check would turn into a every time check because you could have turned into a bad guy, and we already have a background check in place for us to buy a gun so we have to pay when we want to sell a gun that sounds like a hoop to me and don't say it's not a tax because when the government finds a way to get some money from you the voluntary will become mandatory so everyone will have to pay

 

[drshorter]

(a one time back ground check for you )to make sure you have a good record, everyone on the planet had a good background at one point in their life so that one time bg check would turn into a every time check because you could have turned into a bad guy, and we already have a background check in place for us to buy a gun so we have to pay when we want to sell a gun that sounds like a hoop to me and don't say it's not a tax because when the government finds a way to get some money from you the voluntary will become mandatory so everyone will have to pay

Please site your source when you say when the govt. turns something voluntary to a tax. I can do all kinds of things voluntary and im not taxed. This would be an OPTIONAL service not a hoop you have to jump through andthe OP didnt suggest the one time background check that clearly wont work but you background is run everytime your pulled over so dont get hung up on a background check. Your argument holds no water.

 

[oknow]

Please site your source when you say when the govt. turns something voluntary to a tax. I can do all kinds of things voluntary and im not taxed. This would be an OPTIONAL service not a hoop you have to jump through andthe OP didnt suggest the one time background check that clearly wont work but you background is run everytime your pulled over so dont get hung up on a background check. Your argument holds no water.

what kind of things do you do that involves giving money to the government voluntarily also when was the last time you paid $5 or $50 a yr to have your bg check run when you were pulled over

 

[drshorter]

what kind of things do you do that involves giving money to the government voluntarily also when was the last time you paid $5 or $50 a yr to have your bg check run when you were pulled over

Im saying I can do things without paying and the last time I payed was whem I bought my glock from an FFL

 

[oknow]

Im saying I can do things without paying and the last time I payed was whem I bought my glock from an FFL

the question was when pulled over like you stated not buying a gun and voluntary giving money to the government.
but I will not push for an answer have a good day

 

[drshorter]

Dont get mad because you dont get the concept. The point of all of this is to give someone an option to run someone else (which you can already do online for a FEE). This would instead be a phone system instead of online and youd have to pay someone to sit on the other end of that phone. If you dont get the concept just ask I can try and dumb it down more for you if needed.

 

[drshorter]

If it is voluntary and free, there is nothing wrong with it. Oregon already has a similar system Oregon State Police Firearms Instant Check System (FICS) but it costs $10 to use it.

However, like most "gun control" laws, it will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns nor will it have any significant effect on crime. <broken link removed>. The people giving or selling guns to criminals likely know that they are providing a gun to a prohibited person and don't care, so your proposal would have minimal impact on criminals.

Second, once a program like yours is established, the anti-gun rights groups use incrementalism to expand its scope. The Brady Law background checks are a prime example. At first the law applied only to licensed dealers. But once the NICS infrastructure was created then the anti-gun rights groups wanted all sellers - including non-dealers - who happened to be selling at a gun show to be required to perform Brady background checks ("closing the [so-called] gun show loophole"). Oregon, California, and other states took that step. And then the next step is to require background checks for all sales -by dealers and non-dealers - at all locations.





California (as you might expect) has taken that step, requiring FFL transfer, paperwork, background check, and fee for all gun sales, dealer and private (except C&R long guns as the nit-pickers will point out if I don't mention it ).

Of course, background checks do not prevent crime or keep criminals and madmen from obtaining guns. What do the following people have in common, besides being mass murderers:

• Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech)
• Maj. Nidal Hasan (Ft. Hood)
• Jared Loughner (Tucson)
• James Holmes (Aurora)

Answer: all of them PASSED the required NICS Brady background check when they bought firearms.

The overwhelming majority of people going through background checks are law-abiding and sane, and are approved. The majority of prohibited persons bypass the whole system. It gives non-gun owners and anti-gun types an illusion that "something is being done to keep guns out of the wrong hands", but mostly it just creates extra cost and inconvenience for law-abiding gun owners.

It is true that the Brady Law keeps some prohibited persons - those who are in the NICS database - from buying from licensed dealers. But it doesn't stop all mentally ill people, drug addicts, and other prohibited persons who have not been identified as such from buying from licensed dealers. And even the prohibited persons who can't pass a background check have no problems getting a gun from friends, family members, or "on the street". That's why your proposal would have minimal impact on crime.

Very well articulated with facts and sources! You sir went to college

Seriously though good points made here with an intellectual argument

 

[Jammer Six]

Some folks believe it's a right.

Some folks believe that it applies to everyone, regardless of race, color, creed, sex, religion, lack of religion, sexual orientation, color of eyes, place of birth, citizenship, tattoos, preference in music, cars, trucks or dogs.

Some folks even believe that once your sentence is served, you're entitled to this right.

And some folks believe that anything that gets in the way of this right infringes on it to some degree.

All rights save one are regulated. We are not debating whether or not the 2nd will be regulated, it will be. We are debating how much it will be regulated, and I believe that the less it is regulated, the closer we are to "shall not be infringed."

I don't have a problem with felons with weapons. If they've served their sentence, their sentence is served. If they haven't, they shouldn't have been set free.

The only folks I have a problem with owning a weapon are stomp-down, bug-eyed, toys-in-the-attic crazy people. Usually, this problem doesn't last all that long.

 

[Jammer Six]

P.S. You can recognize crazy people because they all drive Fords.

 

[Ligito]

Well since just this kind of thing can be done in Oregon at a gun show as well as many other states I would say yes.

Its required in Oregon to sell a firearm at a gunshow. And is allowed by any individual at any time any where.

Oregon State Police Firearms Instant Check System (FICS)

Blue Steel Democrats: Second Hand Private Gun Sales - How to do it right

I think your quote should be "Earth, the Lunatic Asylum of the Universe", but that's just me.

 

[Docicee]

Some folks believe it's a right.

Some folks believe that it applies to everyone, regardless of race, color, creed, sex, religion, lack of religion, sexual orientation, color of eyes, place of birth, citizenship, tattoos, preference in music, cars, trucks or dogs.

Some folks even believe that once your sentence is served, you're entitled to this right.

And some folks believe that anything that gets in the way of this right infringes on it to some degree.

All rights save one are regulated. We are not debating whether or not the 2nd will be regulated, it will be. We are debating how much it will be regulated, and I believe that the less it is regulated, the closer we are to "shall not be infringed."

I don't have a problem with felons with weapons. If they've served their sentence, their sentence is served. If they haven't, they shouldn't have been set free.

The only folks I have a problem with owning a weapon are stomp-down, bug-eyed, toys-in-the-attic crazy people. Usually, this problem doesn't last all that long.

I could not agree more if someone is habitually breaking the law I say kick them off the island and remove their citizenship. If someone has committed a crime and served there time then justice has been served. The 2nd applies to citizens so its simple draw a line in the sand and revoke citizenship after the line. Remember America it's advanced citizenship you have to want it and fight for it. The cons that the original poster mentioned seem like good candidates to be removed if they are in jail/prison and talking about how there going to get there next gun???

 

[WasrNwarpaint]

Paranoia....By your own volition you spend too much time with the 1%ers.......... please stop already .....criminals ignore laws!!!!! you of all people should know better

it would be one more nail in our own coffins, you will have us like California in no time at all sporting tinfoil hats as you do ....this is all the anti gun people need, one more step in their direction & from our own side!!!!
JEESH

 

[hermannr]

That's all fine and dandy in theory and in an ideal world. But we live in the real world and in the real world lots of criminals are released without serving their full sentence.





Please explain to the anti-gun people and those in the middle why you think it is just great that anyone who isn't actually in prison should be allowed to buy and own guns, given the above.

Next, the "guns for released criminals is fine with me" people will say the answer is to build more prisons and hire more guards. But that requires lots of money, and the same people who say build more prisons are also the first to complain about their taxes being raised.

First: many (maybe most) of the people in jail today are their because of some very misguided laws. Prohibition did not work, and the equally stupid modern version we call the "War on Drugs"...only they just didn't bother to try to get a constitutional amendment this time...probably because if they tried someone might recognize the scam...and the unintended consequences,,,is we got rid of the DEA, if we got rid on the war on drugs, if we repealed the GCA68...

What do you think would happen? (Hint: Look at history, what happened after they repealed prohibition?) Gang problems would decrease...a lot of minority kids might make something of themselves because the lure of easy money selling drugs would disappear. A lot of prisons could be closed because the "criminals" that were convicted for drug use would not be "criminals" any more. Tax revenue would increase and enforcement expenditures would decrease.

I was an adult before the CGA68...there were no prohibited persons, there were no background checks, there were no FFLs...and there were far less problems with guns. (except maybe in NY, NJ and Chicago where the criminal element has always run the political show, and they do not want to be resisted, or have their thugs, excuse me, employees, killed by someone resisting a shake down.