Are background checks necessary?

[texasgun]

^^^

I think we had significantly more crime if we would sell "Tommy guns" in hardware stores with no questions asked as one poster was saying that he misses those days....

 

[beatledog7]

beatledog, do you really think people are released from prison because they are ready to return to society?

No, I don't necessarily think that, and I'm unsure how you got that I think that from my post. It depends on the person, why he or she was imprisoned, etc. Many people go to prison for crimes that are unrelated to violence period let alone violence with firearms, and I can't see any justification for denying their 2A rights once they are released. Some are released because they have served out their sentence fully, or because of overcrowding, parole eligibility, etc., and are not a danger to anyone. Others are released for those reasons but frankly should remain incarcerated because they have demonstrated a willingness to commit violent crimes again.

In short, we need to fix the sentencing and prison systems so that violent offenders who will be violent again stay in prison and the legal system so that non-violent offenders and those whose crimes have nothing to do with firearms regain their RKBA upon release. If we don't trust a proposed ex-con with a gun because of that person's previous actions, given the many ways a gun can be obtained illegally, then we should not be letting him or her out, period.

Granny has to go to the institution because she has advanced Alzheimer's? She can't live at home with her son anymore?

Mental health "institutions" do not have to be big scary buildings with lots of crazy people, guys in white coats, rubber rooms, etc. They can just as easily be private homes IF sufficient safeguards are in place. A person with Alzheimer's should not be given access to a car or a carving knife, let alone a gun, unless it's under very strict control of a competent and specifically trained person. Most folks who take on the task of caring for an Alzheimer's patient on their own eventually admit the need for professional assistance.

If we as a society would admit these two things to ourselves and stop being such politically correct bleeding hearts, two large pieces of the total gun violence puzzle--shootings committed by the mentally ill and shootings committed by the recidivistic criminal--would mostly be eliminated.

 

[texasgun]

I think the thought that the government would suddenly go around and hand out "felony" convictions to strip people of their 2A rights is beyond ridiculous ...
if they "frame" you for a felony conviction your 2A rights are your least problem as you will spent A LONG time in prison before thinking of buying a gun....

We would need to re-write most of our laws and change the justice system significantly to start handing out "felony" convictions for lesser crimes .... something which can hardly go by unnoticed and would impact EVERYBODY because felons also cannot vote and good luck finding a job with a felony conviction....

oooh... there's a black helicopter.... tin foil hat quickly!

 

[klyph]

It's illogical to support a method intended to achieve a certain goal when it has been demonstrated to be ineffective.

 

[texasgun]

^^

ok. drunk driving is illegal and folks under 21 are prohibited from drinking? yet ... everybody still does....

therefore we do not need laws against drunk driving and shouldn't check I.D.s in liquor stores????

 

[barnbwt]

do you really think people are released from prison because they are ready to return to society?

I know, they used to either execute or permanently incarcerate those deemed untrustworthy of life on the outside. Prison used to be for housing those who could not be trusted alone with their peers, and punishing those who hadn't gotten that far with a taste of what they were in for. The notion they could be turned into places of healing and redemption came around when the first sanitariums came online, and we all know how truly misguided that effort was (rampant corruption, inmate abuse, medical experimentation, etc.). I don't know what prison is for today (manufacturing furniture and wood flooring with forced labor on the states' dime, I suspect) but it sure isn't for improving public safety by tucking away baddies for good anymore.

TCB

 

[mljdeckard]

No. Anyone who commits a violent felony should have life-long consequences from it. The Constitution states that no man shall be deprived of his rights without due process of law. Convicted felons have (literally) had their day in court.

We can talk about straightening out the expungement process, (which at the federal level is pretty much non-existent as of now,) but I THINK, there should be a thick stack of conditions on it. (Repeat violent offenders can't do it at all.)

 

[klyph]

ok. drunk driving is illegal and folks under 21 are prohibited from drinking? yet ... everybody still does....

therefore we do not need laws against drunk driving and shouldn't check I.D.s in liquor stores????

I haven't done much research into the correlation and causality of underage drinking and drunk driving. Has underage drinking or drunk driving been reduced following the restrictions put in place? Do they actually do anything or do they just make us feel like we're doing something? Every piece of legislation aimed at prevention should be reviewed after 10 years to evaluate it's effectiveness. If it cannot be demonstrated to be effective, it should be removed in order to free up public funds to address the problem in a manner that will actually be effective. If background checks can be demonstrated to significantly reduce crime in proportion to burden on the taxpayer, it would be difficult to argue against it. I've never seen evidence of correlation or causality. If it's out there, please bring it to our attention.

 

[texasgun]

"No. Anyone who commits a violent felony should have life-long consequences from it. The Constitution states that no man shall be deprived of his rights without due process of law. Convicted felons have (literally) had their day in court."

couldn't have said it better. I'm still baffled by the folks here who are "ok" with zero checks on whatsoever and even think that prohibiting felons from owning a gun is in violation of the 2A and the constitution.... I think if you want to die on that hill you are going to lose the gun debate with the general public in no time....

 

[leadcounsel]

Shall not be infringed

Pretty clear to me. Once you start making classes of people, then adding more disqualifications becomes easier.

First it was violent felons.
Then all felons.
Then MISDEMEANOR DV convictions, retroactively!
Simply having a restraining order from a partner in place against you! That's not even a conviction, just an allegation!
Drug users (nevermind the war on drugs is absurd)
And the widely defined mentally insane... including PTSD from war... (so, you serve your nation in war and then lose your gun rights)...

Let me ask you this. If you REALLY wanted to kill one or groups of people, and you could not buy a gun, or even steal one, would that stop you? Nope.

Lots of things are cheap and easy to get.

Hammers, axes, chainsaws, a bow and arrows, kitchen knives, gas and a match, a car to run people over, fertilizer, rope, water (drowning), a club, a portable scroll saw.... and on and on and on...

The ONLY thing that will stop a violent person is the 'victim' being armed and able to effectively resist.

 

[Deanimator]

I think we had significantly more crime if we would sell "Tommy guns" in hardware stores with no questions asked as one poster was saying that he misses those days....

"MORE crime"???

NOT "crime with different weapons"?

So then you believe that firearms CAUSE crime?

 

[Deanimator]

couldn't have said it better. I'm still baffled by the folks here who are "ok" with zero checks on whatsoever and even think that prohibiting felons from owning a gun is in violation of the 2A and the constitution....

Should convicted felons be allowed to drive?

Make political statements on the internet?

If so, why?

 

[anchorman]

I think background checks are fine, I really don't want criminals and insane people to have an easier time getting weapons. The only people who's rights are infringed by a background check are those groups.

And to be blunt if I had the opportunity to use NICS I wouldn't even sell to another private individual without a background check.

Here, here! Just a personal choice, but I don't usually feel comfortable doing private sales sell to strangers. I trust most people, but I don't want to be responsible if it turns out that they are a prohibited person. And yes, I'm o.k. with violent criminals and the mentally disturbed being considered prohibited persons, along with unsupervised minors.

 

[gc70]

I'm still baffled by the folks here who are "ok" with zero checks on whatsoever and even think that prohibiting felons from owning a gun is in violation of the 2A and the constitution....

People commit crimes, for which they are punished by society. If you believe in rehabilitation, the criminal emerges from punishment as a 'good' person and there would be no reason to treat them differently from anyone else. If you do not believe in rehabilitation, the criminal suffers society's punishment, but is still a 'bad' person when again unleashed into society.

The rationale for background checks -to differentiate between 'good' and 'bad' people- shows that society does not really believe criminals are rehabilitated. Since our society is too compassionate to eliminate unrehabilitated criminals and too cheap to keep them locked away from the rest of society, we all suffer the indignities and inconveniences of measures put in place to protect us from the 'bad' people we let back into our midst.

Some people advocate a different approach - that criminals should not be released into society until we are convinced that they have really been rehabilitated and are no different than anyone else. At that point, there would be no reason for background checks or basis for denying any rights to fully rehabilitated former criminals.

 

[anchorman]

The CT shooter tried and was turned down but unfortunately, that drove him to just take his mothers'. So where does that leave us?

reasonable safe storage mandate. on your person, or locked up, end of story. if you allow a prohibited person access to your firearms, you are culpable. I mention reasonable, because if you live alone or with other non-prohibited persons, there's no reason that leaving them in your locked house or locked vehicle would not constitute safe storage, i.e. make it hard for the not quite determined to get ahold of them. determined people are going to do what they want anyway.

The CT shooter shouldn't have had access to the pistols at the very least, as he was not yet 21. I'm not sure on the rules for gifting a handgun to your kid, but I know under 21 can't buy one.

No single rule is going to make everything perfectly safe, but certain things, like background checks and safe storage are not particularly onerous on the rest of us, and do their part to help keep guns out of the hands of those who have chosen to give up some of their freedoms by committing felonies. some don't see that in a positive light, as they think that everyone who is bad enough that they shouldn't have access to a gun should be in jail, but sometimes jail is not the most sensible way to go. there's a lot of gray areas , but I like to think that we as a society are mostly reasonable people, despite the evidence I sometimes see to the contrary.

 

[anchorman]

Some people advocate a different approach - that criminals should not be released into society until we are convinced that they have really been rehabilitated and are no different than anyone else. At that point, there would be no reason for background checks or basis for denying any rights to fully rehabilitated former criminals.

Nice idea in theory, but we would have a lot more people in jail at that point. Keeping people in jail seems like a good idea, until you realize that it costs a lot of money to keep them there. And keeping a bunch of criminals together in one place seems to breed more criminal behavior, especially the way we leave people to be assaulted by their fellow inmates and even the prison staff at times. Sometimes there's gray areas, and it is to everyones benefit to give someone the benefit of the doubt with some strings attached for the short (or maybe long) term, depending on their crime.

 

[gc70]

anchorman,

Everyone has an opinion on how much risk of criminal recidivism society should accept. And everyone has an opinion on how much they are willing to pay to reduce that risk.

 

[larryh1108]

If you are a person who believes released prisoners should have their rights restored when released then put in a process for these ex-cons to regain their rights they lost when they committed their crimes. Part of the punishment is losing rights but if you feel time served is the entirement punishment then give them a chance at earning the rights back. Set up a review board who will look at many things including the type of crime (violent or non-violent), how often you've shown disregard for the law, etc. Give it a time window to reappy like 5 years. Prove you've become a member of society with a stable work environment and a stable home environment. Give them a chance at earning their rights back and maybe some will do it.

To me, giving a released prisoner (violent crime) easy access to firearms is no different than having a recovering alcoholic work in a bar, a recovering drug abuser a job in an area with open access to drugs, etc. Putting people in areas which tempt failure and you will have relapses.

Some say ex-cons with non-violent convictions deserve their RKBA. Maybe, maybe not. If there is a review process and it shows that he is a one time offender and has been clean for 5 years after his release then maybe he should be able to rejoin society. If he has a rap sheet from childhood and shows a reckless disregard for any and all laws, he deserves what his actions have shown... loss of his rights. Yes, he is labeled. He put the labels there when he chose a life of crime. Society didn't label him, he did it all to himself.

 

[anchorman]

All you have to look at are illegetimate births and the rates.... transfer that to general perceptions of laws and regulations and you can see where the US is headed. .... socialism and tryranny relative to our present government and certainly relative to the government envisioned by our founding fathers.

Sorry, but this talk of illegitimate births and the founding fathers is absolutely silly. A good many of them were known to have fathered quite a few illegitimate children, but that did not by a long shot disqualify them from coming up with the most just, fair and liberal system of governance that the world has ever seen. these "immoral" people had the foresight to write into our constitution that the government does not have the right to restrict free people from owning arms - that is probably one of the most moral and just declarations ever to be codified into law.

 

[anchorman]

Ever since buying his first gun through a background check(S&W 442) my uncle has gotten harassed and searched every time he crosses the border into and out of Canada to see my aunt's family. He was never given any trouble prior to that and now it happens every single time.

probably coincidence if this purchase was made post 2001. there has been a lot of border harassment since people freaked out about some folks flying planes into buildings. I was harassed at the border post 2001, a year or so before I bought my first gun. I have subsequently been harassed and not harassed, both coming and going, depending on the whim of the border agent. We should probably just annex canada in order to end this problem

 

[anchorman]

And please let's not come with "oooh... back in the 70s and 80s we had no checks" ... we all know what violent crime was back then and what is it now....

Violent crime of all sorts is actually lower now than it has been since the 1950's or so. and next year in all likelihood, you will be even safer, statistically speaking. Control for violence that stems from drug prohibitions and systemic poverty in large cities, and we have pretty low violent crime numbers on the whole.

 

[mljdeckard]

It's not that I think barring felons from ownership is a deterrent to crime. It's more that I don't feel like adding them to the list of thing I want to fight for.

 

[Krusty783]

The issue is not giving rehabilitated felons the right to own guns, the issue is not giving punished felons the right to own guns. How many prisoners actually get "rehabilitated" while they're incarcerated? I don't know the numbers, but I'd bet its a fairly small percentage.

Some predators (pedaphiles, rapists, etc.) are psychologically broken and can't really be rehabilitated; Some kids get the message and escape the system. But, by and large, most prisoners forfeit a portion of their lives to captivity spending their time in general population. Perhaps they work in a kitchen or do some other small job, but they end up learning few, if any, honest skills, and then they're released without ever being "rehabilitated". These folks have not been given the tools or opportunity to change their lives and they should not be allowed to own weapons.

If someone participates in one of the boot camps or one of those programs where they rehabilitate animals, etc. and they learn how to be a positive influence and understand the mistakes they've made and they are released from prison and can make an honest living for themselves for a few years, I would say they are rehabilitated and perhaps they should regain some of their rights.

However, society makes it very difficult for any felon to make an honest living for themselves and their family. There are very few jobs a felon can get beyond manual labor type and janitorial jobs, and they definitely don't make much money. Conditions like these tend to push people back to a life of crime because it's what they know and is easier than trying to stay straight.

 

[GEM]

IIRC, if there had been proper reporting of his mental state and interactions with the court, Cho - at VT - might not have been able to legally purchase firearms. Is that worth it?

 

[Hokkmike]

My private gun transactions are primarily FTF and require a LTCF.

Background checks are good in theory but corruptible in practice.