Fee and background check to exercise your religion

[jaybr]

What about the tens of thousands of folk that did nothing to disqualify them under the current rules but who CAN'T GET A NICS APPROVAL?

How do you intend to explain to them that they have less rights than you, with no useful end to that restriction?

I agree that it is a problem and the system needs to be fixed.

 

[N003k]

I had a bit of a random thought on the background check bit. If at any point you reach a point where something's wrong, stupid, or if ya just find a gaping flaw in the idea that I somehow missed, feel free to just shoot the idea down.

I think we can all agree on the following,

Whether potentially dangerous felons should or shouldn't be released from prison, that they are.

That anyone that wants to can get a gun without the background check.

That if a felon wants to get a gun, they can, by a variety of methods.

Right so far?

So, it comes down to how do you stop the potentially violent felons from walking into a gunshop and walking out with a firearm, still correct?

What if it just became a law to show some form of valid ID to purchase a gun? Kills two birds with one stone, it confirms to the seller that you're of age...and if you bear with me, I'll explain how it'd stop Joe Felon from buying a gun from a shop, even potentially from a FTF seller.

What if, and I have no idea what processes would have to be gone through to accomplish this, the IDs of felons had a clear symbol/mark/any indicator that the person committed a felony, and as such would be a illegal to sell a gun to?

I PERSONALLY don't think having to show an ID is an infringement, heck, when I buy a gun now from a shop they ask to see it just so they make sure they get my name right etc.

It SHOULD prevent false denials since if you don't have the symbol, they have no reason to deny the sale.

Obviously, the already available ways of purchasing a gun illegally, whether off the street, straw buyers, and FTF sales exist, but those were already there before. And a FTF seller would easily be able to identify if the person was a felon just by asking to check their ID.

Obviously it would lead to the use of false ID's to purchase, but that's not really anymore difficult then the current ways to illegally purchase...

What do you guy's think?

 

[BhmBill]

With regards to convicted felons, my view is they forefitted their rights when they CHOOSE to commit the crime.

But once they're free and out of prison, they shouldn't receive the same rights as other free men? Even though they paid their "debt" to society?

Here in Vegas, it's a felony to have something like a Gerber or Leatherman concealed (ie. In your pocket) because of it's blade length. I guess it's perfectly okay to deny a construction worker or whoever got caught with a multi-tool in their pocket the rights of any other free man after they're out of prison. Obviously, he's a risk to society. But hey, we feel like he might go on a murderous rampage with a gun because he's a felon whose paid his "debt to society" (but really hasn't because he still doesn't have the same rights).

Reasonable.

 

[BhmBill]

Idk where to begin with N003k's post...

 

[N003k]

Guess I shouldn't have said just respond as soon as ya get to something stupid lol, I acknowledged later on that they still have the options of getting them illegally, but it would at least solve the background check issue, and wouldn't, as best as I can determine, be any infringement on the rights of those that can already legally own them.

Also, I'm in the camp of thinking that if you're released from prison that you should have all rights restored, and if you're that dangerous that you cant be trusted to not commit yet more violent crimes, then you shouldn't be released from prison at all...

The MAIN point wasn't to solve the entire issue, but just an idea on the background check infringement bit.

Edit: And ya changed it, if it works, just call me an idiot, I'm tired, it was a quick thought, that I probably should take more time to sit and think about, but figured I'd just throw it out there anyways.

 

[jaybr]

But once they're free and out of prison, they shouldn't receive the same rights as other free men? Even though they paid their "debt" to society?

Part of the penalty for the felony is loss of certain rights for life, I'm ok with that. No one forced these people to commit a crime, they chose to do so of their own free will and loss of some rights is part of the penalty.

Here in Vegas, it's a felony to have something like a Gerber or Leatherman concealed (ie. In your pocket) because of it's blade length. I guess it's perfectly okay to deny a construction worker or whoever got caught with a multi-tool in their pocket the rights of any other free man after they're out of prison. Obviously, he's a risk to society. But hey, we feel like he might go on a murderous rampage with a gun because he's a felon whose paid his "debt to society" (but really hasn't because he still doesn't have the same rights).

Reasonable.

I think that is a totaly different debate "what should constitute a felony vs mis-demeanor"

 

[BhmBill]

Also, I'm in the camp of thinking that if you're released from prison that you should have all rights restored, and if you're that dangerous that you cant be trusted to not commit yet more violent crimes, then you shouldn't be released from prison at all...

That is correct. No need for background checks and fee's or the ID's you describe (which already exist in alot of states and metro areas and have not deterred crime one bit).

Leave them in prison. Don't give them the opportunity to ever possessing a firearm instead of letting them out and hoping they don't and then pass more laws to restrict those who have no intent of breaking the law.

Part of the penalty for the felony is loss of certain rights for life, I'm ok with that. No one forced these people to commit a crime, they chose to do so of their own free will and loss of some rights is part of the penalty.

I think that is a totaly different debate "what should constitute a felony vs mis-demeanor"

Their penalty was prison, thats where they lose their rights. If we feel they're still a danger, LEAVE THEM IN PRISON. We felt they're good enough to be released and free to roam the streets, why shouldn't they receive their rights? Oh yeah.... because we feel they're still a threat and for some reason, they're out and walking the streets.

 

[TAB]

Part of the penalty for the felony is loss of certain rights for life, I'm ok with that. No one forced these people to commit a crime, they chose to do so of their own free will and loss of some rights is part of the penalty.

I don't know anyone that has not commited a felony some time in thier life. There are 1000s of felonys out there, some are very minor.

 

[BhmBill]

I don't know anyone that has not commited a felony some time in thier life. There are 1000s of felonys out there, some are very minor.

There are so many laws in this country, that every man, woman, and child has committed a felony (and plenty of misdemeanors that would of denied them their 2a rights) at some point in their life

 

[Rockwell1]

I don't know anyone that has not commited a felony some time in thier life.

I mentioned this in the other thread but I knew a guy in Germany that got busted for buying a pack of Newports (untaxed) at the shopette and giving them to his German father in law. He got a DD and lost his RKBA permanently.

I had my wallet stolen, when it was found and returned to me I was told to turn my ID & ration card (from the old wallet) in to 187th Evacc S1 I waited till the next time I went to Würzburg to do it and my Plt. Sgt tried to pop me for having 2 ration cards.

I am absolutely convinced after 2 of these threads that we have some antis in gunowner clothing on this forum as well as, some folks who just want to debate.

 

[BhmBill]

I am absolutely convinced after 2 of these threads that we have some antis in gunowner clothing on this forum as well as, some folks who just want to debate.

If they are open minded, We should welcome them. Whether you/they want to hear it or not, You perpetrate ignorace if you don't willingly listen, consider, and understand both sides of a debate/argument.

If someones only intent is to rouse people, then they should perhaps go elsewhere. That helps no one.

 

[TAB]

am absolutely convinced after 2 of these threads that we have some antis in gunowner clothing on this forum as well as, some folks who just want to debate.

as long as it remains civil I will welcome a debate with anyone, on just about any subject.

 

[Rockwell1]

as long as it remains civil I will welcome a debate with anyone, on just about any subject.

I don't so much mind the civil debate. What gets me is the people that argue just for the sake of argument

 

[sernv99]

I am absolutely convinced after 2 of these threads that we have some antis in gunowner clothing on this forum as well as, some folks who just want to debate.

I'm convinced we have some liberal left wingers in gunowner clothing on here. Left wingers advocate for felons to have their rights restored, even if it means RKBA. These same left wing liberals also advocate another AWB etc. Seems ironic huh?

When you have people advocating legal gun ownership for felons and using the analogy of how it was like that back in the Ol' West in the 1800's, you have to wonder if these people are good spokespersons for the RKBA movement. If we are using that logic, then let's allow child molesters to work in day care centers, because back in ancient Rome and Greece, adult men use to have sex with underage children and it was a normal thing to do this.

I have not heard of any mainstream pro-gun movement advocating felons to have legal gun ownership, not even a die hard pro-gun politician like Ron Paul. That says a lot. Some don't want to admit this.

 

[rbernie]

Sernv99 - you forget the threads that are posted here that counter your arguments.

I said to you, in response to your assertation that a Brady check does not constitute an infringement to the RKBA:

But let's play along and assume a best case scenario of six weeks for an appeal. Is that really acceptable? Do you not feel some sense of infringement for a system that creates at least TEN THOUSAND erroneous rejections each year?

And that ten thousand per year figure are just the appeals that are accepted and the NICS records updated. I dunno how many folk are denied and simply turn away, presuming that their .gov will simply not allow them to buy a gun. Were those folk not infringed upon by the system?

How about the folk whose appeals are rejected because they cannot assemble the records demanded of the DoJ to process the appeal?

Do you still maintain that a mandatory background check and approval by the .gov that must be completed PRIOR to the exchange of property does not infringe upon the RKBA?

 

[sernv99]

Bernie:

I debunked your argument when you made this blanket statement:

Sernv99 - you do realize that NICS appeals can take months, if not years, right?

So if I prohibited you from buying a firearm for 6-9 months and made you spend untold hours gathering and submitting the paperwork for your appeal, you wouldn't consider that an infringement?

I found proof that there are folks out there that didnt have to go through a 6-9 month ordeal, hence debunking your generalization. Word to the wise, don't make a generalization/blanket statements without first checking the facts.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I found proof that there are folks out there that didnt have to go through a 6-9 month ordeal, hence debunking your generalization. Word to the wise, don't make a generalization/blanket statements without first checking the facts.

So let me make sure I understand your reasoning.

As long as only A FEW people are inconvenienced then it's not "infringement" of a civil right?

And by the way you didn't "debunk" anyhting. His statement was thet NICS appeals "can" take months, and some do. That is a 100% true statement. He did not say "all", he said "can" which means, if you speak English, a subset of the whole which by definition isn't a generalization.

Seriously, when we're down to debating where one side has to redefine the meaning of common English language words to make their point, I think it's time to end it.

 

[rbernie]

Sernv99:

I found proof that there are folks out there that didn't have to go through a 6-9 month ordeal, hence debunking your generalization.

You debunked nothing - you flatly dodged the question by quibbling over a nit. I even gave you examples where it HAD taken that long - you ignored them. For the sake of furthering the discussion, I further agreed to your definition of the duration of an appeal, if only to get you to focus on the actual issue at hand - the NUMBER of NICS appeals that were successfully prosecuted every year.

You didn't debunk anything - you dodged it. To repeat what I asked:

But let's play along and assume a best case scenario of six weeks for an appeal. Is that really acceptable? Do you not feel some sense of infringement for a system that creates at least TEN THOUSAND erroneous rejections each year?

And that ten thousand per year figure are just the appeals that are accepted and the NICS records updated. I dunno how many folk are denied and simply turn away, presuming that their .gov will simply not allow them to buy a gun. Were those folk not infringed upon by the system?

How about the folk whose appeals are rejected because they cannot assemble the records demanded of the DoJ to process the appeal?

Had you read the cites I provided, you would have learned that there were, on average, sixty five thousand Brady NICS rejections by the DoJ each year between 1999 and 2005. You would have also learned that approximately ten thousand of those rejections were overturned on appeal, meaning that the DoJ agreed that it should not have prevented the sale of the firearm. There is also an unknownable number of those sixty seven thousand folk who elected NOT to appeal, or whose appeal could not be successfully prosecuted because they could not collect the LE data needed to clear up the FBIs files.

Whether that rejection prevented the firearm buyer from completing the transaction and taking possession of the firearm for six weeks or six months seems less relevant than addressing how that denial did not represent an infringement upon that individuals right to keep and bear arms?

Sernv99 - you stated that a Brady Check denial did not constitute an infringement and I'd like to hear the logic of how you arrived at that conclusion. It's time to pony up a substantive discussion defending your position, and stop dodging it.

In general, let's recap the issue posed by the OP.

We've discussed the effectivity of the NICS check, and shown the DoJ's own data demonstrating that the Brady/NICS check has made no discernible impact upon crime rates. We've also shown how, in return for genuflecting to a system that fails to achieve it's stated purpose, tens of thousands of US citizens are denied their legal rights by the inherent limitations of this system.

Lemme see. Doesn't solve a problem? Check. Causes more problems? Check.

Oh, yes - we should argue for it. It makes us LOOK SMARTER and MORE COOPERATIVE if we smile and nod at this 'common sense' gun control.

<sigh>

 

[CoRoMo]

Under current law, when you are convicted of a felony, you will almost certainly lose your 2nd Amendment right. You may be punished with jail time, maybe not. But once the sentence has been served, the right to own and carry a gun is not automatically restored. In most all cases that right is never restored.

Anyone want to tell me why this is a good thing?

 

[Cannonball888]

You use this as an example of absurdity, but don't be surprised if it becomes a reality. The far left historically and presently have always been anti-religion.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

sernv99: "For all you know, they got denied because their last name was mis-spelled, wrong SSN or other ID number input into the computer. Happens all the time with folks with obscure last names."

That isn't how it works. If I fill out the form as "Qwertyuiop Asdfghjkl-Zxcvbnm" and produce matching ID for that name to the shopowner, he will call it in. As there is no criminal record for a person of that name, the purchase will be approved. That's how "Homer J. Simpson" allegedly purchases tens of thousnads of rifles every year.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

TAB: "I don't know anyone that has not commited a felony some time in thier life. There are 1000s of felonys out there, some are very minor."

Very true. Ever cheat on your taxes a little? Felon. Ever exchange sourced stock tips? Felon. Ever run a betting pool? Felon. Ever help a racketeer duck a warrant and move his business? Felon.

Then there's the habitual motor vehicle offender felonies, and the absurdly low dollar threshholds which elevate petty theft to felony level. Not to mention what happens if you are caught with a little too much dope a mere 999 feet and 11 inches from the back door of a part time nursery school in the basement of a church.

 

[runrabbitrun]

Not that it matters but I'd like to point out that an infringement
can be permanent, or it may not be permanent.
Either way, it's still an infringement of a right
and 2a states 'shall NOT be infringed'.

I can understand the other side of this debate
has some people thinking 'something'
needs to be in place to make it
a little more difficult for a convicted felon
to obtain a firearm from a FFL dealer.
(I generally felt the same way, till I began to really think about it more)...

I'd say it makes those who feel this way somewhat 'safer' knowing that
the government is doing 'something'
to try and curb felons from getting hands on firearms legally.

The BIG problem to me is:
Why is it that an ex con is still considered dangerous enough
that they can't own a firearm to protect themselves and their family...
AFTER they have done their time and paid their debt to society?

 

[rbernie]

As has been pointed out here in the past - oral sex is a felony in certain jurisdictions. MANY things are felonies, not because of the harm that they cause, but because it pleased some politico's to declare it so.

Defining crimes as felonies is easy. Declaring felons to have forfeited their rights is easy. Reconciling the net result of those proclamations requires an intellectual courage that is sadly lacking in many quarters.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

runrabbitrun: "The BIG problem to me is: Why is it that an ex con is still considered dangerous enough that they can't own a firearm to protect themselves and their family... AFTER they have done their time and paid their debt to society?"

The reasoning is that past is prologue. In olden days, felonies were serious, violent affairs. There was no such thing as felony habitual offender operating after suspension, felony OUI, felony tax evasion, felony insider trading, felony racketeering, felony trafficking or, ordinarily, felony theft. Felons meant murderers, maimers, robbers, rapers, et cetera ad nauseum. Society figured it deserved to be able to protect itself from that sort, as they very well might do their particular dirty deed again. That assumption is no longer valid, if it ever was. Felonies are so common now that the term is losing its traditional meaning.