Are background checks good or bad?

[ROMAK IV]

WOW! You guys are easy. I didn't vote in the poll because the questions are leading. Just because I disapprove of background checks doesn't mean I want every single personb to have guns. Clearly, it is possible to deny a firearms purchase from a legal source to someone who shouldn't have a gun, but some of you have been convinced otherwise.

Let's examine some of the reasons that you have given to favor background checks:

1. Background checks prevent unauthorized persons from getting guns. This isn't true! Criminals and others will simply get them illegally. You will have your privacy dragged through the mud every time you buy a gun. At some point in time, there will also be a prohibition on private sales without federal approval, and as we have seen, an already expanded list of items that will result in a lifetime ban of gun rights. Dr. Emerson lost his and NEVER committed a single crime. On top of that, there has been a successful effort by the federal govenrment to drastically reduce the number of FFL holders. In some localities, you won't be able to find an FFL to transfer and call you background check in to the government. There could be a system where relevant data about legal status for ownership could be shown, like on a drivers kicense, where it could be seen by the seller without federal government knowledge or consent.

2. Background checks protect the seller. This isn't true either. The purpose of the background check is to find a reason to prevent you or impede you from getting a gun, and it is intentional. There was a Saturday where the NICS was suppposedly "down". And guess what? Nobody got a gun that day except CCW holders. And then there is the campaign against "gun traffickers", a term of slander for those gun dealers who are unfortunate enough to happen to sell to people who then transfer or misuse the guns illegally. The fact that everyone of those have approved background checks hasn't prevented them from possible prosecution from gun haters like Mayor Bloomberg.

The background checks have already been abused by Clinton and some of the states that have their own checks. And what about poor Dr. Emerson? He was getting a divorce and received a restraining order as a part of an administrative step even though he had neither committed a crime nor had been shown in court to be a threat to his soon to be ex-wife. He was arrested and charged with a federal gun crime because of his posession of two previously legal handguns. The government refuses to make neaningful background checks for illegal aliens, yet we insist that a background check to execise a legal right is okay?

 

[Soybomb]

The background check system at best doesn't stop criminals from getting guns, at worst it might be abused. I do not support it and instead would support some sort of sentencing and incarceration change that might keep the criminals that aren't reformed away from legal guns, illegal guns, and myself all together.

 

[kane123123]

The idea is to keep guns in the hands of decent people and out of the hands of criminals. That makes for a safer society.

Criminals by definition break the law and will get guns, but decent people should be able to get them for defense. A criminal's job doesn't need to be made easier, but the criminal will eventually get the gun anyways.

 

[Never No More]

>>>Some of us take comfort in the idea that convicted felons, illegal aliens, and people who are adjudicated mentally deficient can't walk into any gun store and get a gun<<<

No they go to the local street corner or motel room and buy thiers.

 

[USMC6177]

I support the idea of running a background check to see if said gun buyer has any outstanding warrents on him or her, but I am not for any type of registration or anything else. If the person is not in jail or is not undergoing mental health evaluations I have no problem with them buying a gun.

I also think that if you do commit a crime and are convicted the state should take your guns and other property not needed to support your family and sell them to provide capital for maintaining the penal system. When you get out you can have guns but you gotta buy em all over again.

 

[jefnvk]

In my little theoretical world, people wouldn't be out of jail until tehy were deemed to be a trusted member of society, with all the rights of a normal person.

However, that is not the real world, so while they aren't my favorite, I'm not arguing against them.

 

[crebralfix]

Background checks are a complete waste of time. They only serve as a barrier to ownership by law abiding people. It also notifies the government of who is buying firearms and it's none of their business.

If an undesireable wants a gun, they'll get one outside of the approved system.

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

A convicted felon out on parole should not be able to walk into Bob's Gunshop and purchase a firearm, no questions asked. This insinuates that the felon has the same rights as me while he is still part of the correctional system and this is flawed. The realistic implications of "no questions asked" purchases are enormous, not from a matter of principle but of reality. Should people be allowed to purchase firearms with no interference from the government? Certainly. However, until the time comes when the justice system is fixed and real criminals are not back out due to overcrowding, but by paying their debt, this cannot take place. I am torn over this issue but I have a major problem with a convicted criminal being able to, by de facto, legally excercise the same rights as myself.

 

[kludge]

Didn't vote in this poll.

I can't support the current way of doing background checks - which to me is nothing more than a backdoor registration program with the blessing of the NRA.

My proposal...

Every four years we all walk into the Licence Branch to renew our drivers licenses.

Everybody gets a background check.

People who aren't allowed to buy guns get a red background for their photo.

Illegal immigrants get deported.

Everyone else gets a blue background.

Under 21 get a yellow background (facilitates ID checks at bars, etc.)

Everyone with a blue background can walk into any gun store in the country and walk out the firearm of their choice.

Everyone with a blue background may legally possess a handgun on their person or in their vehicle anywhere in the USA, including "Federal" land with pehaps a few national restrictions (states could keep their own restrictions).

If a cop finds you with a gun and you have a red background, you go back to jail.

There is state by state process for changing your background from red to blue.

Viola - national reciprocity, no violation of "shall not be infringed."

 

[rbernie]

Theoretically I suppose they are good.

Realistically I don't think they stop anybody.

Principally I think they are a violation of individual rights.

Anybody else see it this way?

Pretty much.

 

[StuckInMA]

Same thing with CCW laws, no discretion, you pass the background check, you get the CCW permit, the authorites have no discretion to deny, this is how it should be, and is.

Wish that's how it was up here in MA.

 

[joffe]

I oppose background checks on principle grounds. On the other hand, background checks makes the black market much more attractive for a criminal, thus denying political ammunition to anti-gun statists.

 

[RPCVYemen]

It appears to me the background checks are a reasonable alternative to a national ID card. It seems to me that there has to be some mechanism to hinder felons and other folks from obtaining handguns. kludge's solution seems to me to be the only reasonable alternative proposes in this thread, but it seems more draconian to me than background checks.

Note the word "hinder" - when someone argues "but criminals get guns from the street corner anyway" they are falling into a fallacious line of reasoning - unless they are willing to legalize possession of all contraband (say, nuclear weapons, anthrax, child porn, etc.) because "criminals get it anyway".

I do agree that the background check system should really only be a background check, and not another policy disguised as a background check.

I am also willing to accept a certain delay due to a background check, and a certain error rate.in the database. Both should be decreased, but I live in the real world. It seems to me that large databases will likely always have errors.

The error rate is probably some function of the money spent on maintaining the database. Unfortunately, the function is probably exponential. By that I mean that each extra step in reliability probably doubles the amount money. For example, I would guess that the time/money needed to take the database from 99% accuracy to 99.9% accuracy is probably the same expenditure that that it took to get from 90% to 99%.

There are probably database's out there with extraordinarily low error rate - launch codes for missiles, for example. I would be that those database's are hideously expensive to maintain.

How many folks who complain about the accuracy/reliability of the database would be willing to pay more in taxes or NICS fees to implement the reliability? Probably not many folks.

Mike

 

[General Geoff]

The only background check I support is a glance at the purchaser's ID to verify they're not a minor.


End of story.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

Every four years we all walk into the Licence Branch to renew our drivers licenses.

Everybody gets a background check.

Not everyone has, can get, or even wants a drivers license. You want to require people to obtain and maintain a drivers license so they can buy firearms? How is a desire to drive at all related to exercising a right.

Your papers please? Talk about infringement...

Not to mention a background check every four years? That's certainly doesn't seem effective.

Also, your yellow/blue background makes it so those who could legally purchase long guns could no longer at 18 could no longer do so until they are 21.

Additionally, if I can drive at 16, and we renew every 4 years, that means that when I renew at 20 I get another yellow backed card until I'm 24, effectively limiting purchases for an additional three years.

Somehow, I don't think you thought your cunning plan all the way through.

 

[REOIV]

So you guys in favor of back ground checks I have this question for you:

What is the plan when congress defunds NICS like the 1986 registry closure?

How do we buy firearms then?

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

How do we buy firearms then?

I suppose we just move to Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, Utah or Wyoming and get the appropriate permit that fulfills the alternate background check requirement.

 

[HonorsDaddy]

Personally...

I think they are a pointless, feel-good measure designed to provide the illusion of security. You know - kinda like airport "security".

We can all see they don't actually do, or prevent, anything except the occasional truly stupid criminal from buying a gun at retail.

Frankly, anyone here who agrees with them is invited to indulge in some activities Art's gramma probably wouldnt appreciate me describing (but i bet she'd agree with the sentiment)

 

[REOIV]

I suppose we just move to Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, Utah or Wyoming and get the appropriate permit that fulfills the alternate background check requirement.

And how do you get a conceal carry permit with no gun?

OH and why do you think they don't do an NICS check during your permit application?

Also why do you think one should have to have a conceal carry to own a weapon?

Let alone why should a person have to supply fingerprints, access to medical records etc to be able to defend themselves?

There are just as many reasons to be against conceal carry laws as there are to be against background checks.

We don't require a permit to carry a pocket knife or have a machete in reach in a car. Why should a gun need one?

 

[HonorsDaddy]

Redneck with a 40...

You said :

Hey trac, how would you feel if someone bought one of your guns at you're garage sale, then proceeded to shoot someone with it the next day? The gun would get traced back to you, which puts you in a world of hurt. Not to mention the guilty conscience I know I would have.

I cant speak for trac, but speaking for myself (this is an open forum right?), i wouldn't feel any responsibility for the illegal and irresponsible choices someone made with his own property. Just as I would feel no guilt if i sold a guy a car and then the next day, he went out and ran into a bus load of kids because he was an idiot. Now if that happened because i sold him a car with bad brakes, its a different story -but assuming it is in good working condition, it isn't my problem.

I'm sorry you go through life with a conscience which feels guilt for things you neither did, nor had control over. Tell me, do you track the future owners and driving habits of anyone to whom you sell a used car? Do you feel bad if they have an accident?

This is the reason I don't sell any guns out of the classified ads, I trade my guns at dealers. This way, if someone want's to buy my former gun, they are going through the background check. Just a personal policy of mine. I've also noticed lately that more and more private sellers at gun show's here are requiring the person to pass the background check, to me, this is a "save your ass" policy on their part, which I can understand.

Hey, if it makes you feel better to believe that you're making a difference, great. Just do me a favor and stop forcing ME to tolerate the same garbage just so you can have a warm fuzzy.

Case in point, two weeks ago I bought a Universal M-1 Carbine from a private seller, he wanted the background check conducted, I said "no problem".

Yeah, so? That was HIS choice. Mandated background checks remove that choice and force ME to do what makes YOU feel good.

Frankly sir, i don't give a tinker's dam about what makes you feel good.

 

[dstorm1911]

I am currently holding a friends gun collection for him.... he has a CCW but suddenly cannot pass a background check because he evicted a drug adict sisters boyfriend a year ago from his property that they were living on as he was trying to help his sister out being a good brother etc... neighbors contact him and inform him that she has a boyfriend whos a skinhead all tatted up from prison etc... and is constantly carrin around a 9 mm shooting it etc... everytime the cops show they can't do anything cause no guns present etc...

Well I was present as backup the day he evicted em...... he never once even raised his voice just said this is how it is etc.. the sister was flippin out on him and crap well we are leaving when the cops show up, the sister claims my friend verbally threatened her boy friend (he never did) Well he gets printed etc... the cops let me take his sidarm ........ anyhow he is charged with domestic violence a misomener anyhow 9 months later the courts clear him as he has all kinds of video evidence etc.. provided by a neighbor etc.. he still cannot clear a back ground check!! Even though he was cleared all charges dismissed just the fact he was CHARGED with domestic violence is enough he so far has several thousand dollars tied up in legal fees trying to get his rights restored..........

Now I am a dealer also and recently discovered that onea my best customers a very polite very knowledgeable gun collector who has over 300 guns in his collection he has passed numerouse NCIC checks from me alone as well as a ton of local dealers then he got a CCW last year so no more NCIC checks he also has a C&R ffl etc.. well it turns out that he is also a carreer criminal with a very long history mostly thefts etc... but yep a couple violent crims as well.......... turns out he purchased a new identity a lil over a decade ago and went straight etc... he hired someone to do the CCW testing for him using his I.D as he already had the CCW the state pd did not re-print him for the CCW but rather sent the original print card etc.. turns out he has been a fugative all these years and was finally uncovered when he got busted for a DUI and the prints didn't match......... I bought his entire collection including 2 transferable NFA guns so he could pay legal fees.......

And these are far from isolated cases so someone please explain to me what is actually being accomplished again????

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

Your questions are silly, but I'll entertain them since you worked so hard to make them up.

And how do you get a conceal carry permit with no gun?

Lots of states dont' require you to own a gun to get a permit. Next!

OH and why do you think they don't do an NICS check during your permit application?

I can't really answer this one since it is based on your incredibly strange suggestion they are going to turn off NICS.

Also why do you think one should have to have a conceal carry to own a weapon?

Now you're just putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that, I just said that is what people could do if, for some bizarre reason, NICS got shut down.

Let alone why should a person have to supply fingerprints, access to medical records etc to be able to defend themselves?

Again, didn't say this. You seem to have confused me with someone else.

There are just as many reasons to be against conceal carry laws as there are to be against background checks.

Let's see, no conceal carry laws and we can carry in two states or conceal carry and we can carry in what, 38 states? I suppose we can get rid of them and fight for Vermont style laws for the next 30 years.

We don't require a permit to carry a pocket knife or have a machete in reach in a car. Why should a gun need one?

Oh, I'm pretty sure that machetes fall under most dangerous weapons laws.

Now, how about some answers from you...

What is the plan when congress defunds NICS like the 1986 registry closure?

Please tell me exactly when and how this is supposed to occur? Many your silly questions seem to be based on this wild assumption this is going to happen and perhaps soon. Please give us some evidence of this. Otherwise, it just look like paranoid ranting from someone incapable of forming good arguments against background checks.

But honestly, you shouldn't even reply for my benefit. I really have no interest in any doomsday rantings. Shutting down NICS isn't a good strategy for the antigun crowd and the possibility doesn't even merit discussion.

 

[Dave Markowitz]

I will support background checks when you need one to purchase a computer (need to keep them out of the hands of pedophiles, ya know), vote (don't want felons voting), or buy a safe (don't want criminals securing their stuff).

</sarcasm>

Can you tell I'm disappointed with the majority of this poll's respondents? Is the right to keep and bear arms not a fundamental right? Why is acceptable that we require proving to the government that we are good people before exercising a fundamental right? Can you name another where this is true?

Are you a citizen or a subject?

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Why is acceptable that we require proving to the government that we are good people before exercising a fundamental right? Can you name another where this is true?

Are you a citizen or a subject?

Ask yourself that same question when you go down to the bank to withdraw or deposit and you have to verify your identity or for any transaction involving a plastic card. If you have a driver's license your point is moot.

 

[HonorsDaddy]

Venkman...

Your bank analogy is inaccurate. You accept the requirements placed by the bank - a private entity with which you have contracted to do business.

Requirements put in place by the government and backed up by force when said government is explicitly forbidden from doing so is not the same thing.