30 Day Background Check

[Deleted member 28227]

You just said it yourself..laws against behavior...yes...laws to reduce my rights as a gun owner...no way and there is a big difference. We don’t make a person wait to buy a car and they literally could buy it to go run someone over. Actually they would most likely steal one as someone would most likely get a gun the same way.

You have to have a license to operate a car, you can buy a car without a license but you must have a license to register the car. You can't get a driver's license without taking a paper and practical exam. In many jurisdictions, you have to make an appointment to get your license. It's not unreasonable to say that if you were 28 and had never had a license before it might take 2 or 3 months to get your driver's license and purchase a car.

People commit all sorts of crimes, that doesn't mean we should remove the laws. Whelp criminals are going to kill people so let's just make murder legal, I mean what's the point.

Well we have the 2A and driving a car isn't a right... well unless we can articulate why we should have firearms that could change. If 51% of the population in 34 states decides the US is better off without the 2A then it's gone.

Democracy affords us the ability to allow lots of personal freedoms, it also requires us to constantly communicate effectively with others.

 

[Racrawfo1013]

You have to have a license to operate a car, you can buy a car without a license but you must have a license to register the car. You can't get a driver's license without taking a paper and practical exam. In many jurisdictions, you have to make an appointment to get your license. It's not unreasonable to say that if you were 28 and had never had a license before it might take 2 or 3 months to get your driver's license and purchase a car.

People commit all sorts of crimes, that doesn't mean we should remove the laws. Whelp criminals are going to kill people so let's just make murder legal, I mean what's the point.

Well we have the 2A and driving a car isn't a right... well unless we can articulate why we should have firearms that could change. If 51% of the population in 34 states decides the US is better off without the 2A then it's gone.

Democracy affords us the ability to allow lots of personal freedoms, it also requires us to constantly communicate effectively with others.

Murders are illegal. That’s an action. Not the tool. Guns are regulated now. You can not buy a long gun until age 16 and hand gun until 21 with background checks already in place for both. Use the laws that are on the books now. FYI cars are more dangerous than guns. You have a greater chance of losing your life by car than a gun by far. Hell shooting sports used to be taught in schools and it was no big deal to have a gun in the truck in the school parking lot.
You need to recognize the real problem and that is, “why does Americans have more evil in their hearts now and why are we more mentally unstable as a nation?” Fix that issue! That is the root cause! Not the tool one uses to commit the crime.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Murders are illegal. That’s an action. Not the tool. Guns are regulated now. You can not buy a long gun until age 16 and hand gun until 21 with background checks already in place for both. Use the laws that are on the books now. FYI cars are more dangerous than guns. You have a greater chance of losing your life by car than a gun by far. Hell shooting sports used to be taught in schools and it was no big deal to have a gun in the truck in the school parking lot.
You need to recognize the real problem and that is, “why does Americans have more evil in their hearts now and why are we more mentally unstable as a nation?” Fix that issue! That is the root cause! Not the tool one uses to commit the crime.

You you you you you

Learn how to have a conversation about a complex topic.

Read through my other comments in the thread, the entire point of these conversations is to consider other points of view and hone your argument.

Current age restrictions, accident rates of other things, and historical social tolerances really have nothing to do with the current national conversation.

 

[O C Hunter]

Background checks are illegal.

 

[Racrawfo1013]

You you you you you

Learn how to have a conversation about a complex topic.

Read through my other comments in the thread, the entire point of these conversations is to consider other points of view and hone your argument.

I will admit, “you” is a bad choice of words. I believe I corrected it in one of my post but yes, “A person” is better suited. I have read your viewpoint and frankly I don’t think it makes a damn bit of sense. Anyway, I believe my point has been received and we can agree to disagree.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Background checks are illegal.

Anyone can say "background checks are bad" or "wrong" or "useless", but please share a legal finding that supports your conclusion of "illegal". Words matter and it is essential we remain a nation of laws and not of men.

 

[O C Hunter]

Anyone can say "background checks are bad" or "wrong" or "useless", but please share a legal finding that supports your conclusion of "illegal". Words matter and it is essential we remain a nation of laws and not of men.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed per the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. There are no exceptions allowed.

 

[Nick87]

I think this is about to run its course.

 

[Dave N]

Yup.

 

[VikingsGuy]

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed per the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. There are no exceptions allowed.

So, are libel laws, slander laws, sedition laws, time/place/manner restrictions all violations of the First Amendment "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech"? Is "abridging" materially different than "infringing"? Which is the higher standard?

And since the 2A says, "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." Who answers the definitional questions it leaves - such as does this in any way have to relate to "Militia" activities? What devices are "Arms"? Is any minor regulation an "infringement"? Does a "pre-screen" to possession infringe "keep and bear" or does it go to "acquire" which is not referenced (but maybe it is an implicit inclusion)? Should this apply to state and local governments or just the fed (you will be surprised at the answer if you read a little history)?

Our constitution undoubtedly has for 200+ years allow reasonable limitation on ALL of the first 10 amendments. And our society has respected that SCOTUS is the proper arbiter of all constitutional interpretation questions.

Again, if every person gets to make up their own reading of the 2A then I guess Chicago can ban all guns for all reasons, as their local leaders read the 2A as being entirely limited to National Guard activity and irrelevant in any way because the 2A does not apply to the states. Why is your read better than their's? Who decides?

SCOTUS does. Scalia has set the rules. I trust Scalia's jurisprudence over that of the average internet legal warrior.

Fine to disagree with SCOTUS, but mere disagreement does not make the law. No appeal court in the land has ever held our current background check law unconstitutional - ZERO. This includes judges appointed by Reagan, Bush, Bush, and Trump.

I am pro 2A, but to pretend it is not subject to any regulation is a complete and total misunderstanding of our entire constitution and our rule of law. It ignores how this country has run for 220+ years. Frankly, if we are going to win this battle against the anti-2A folks we are going to have to do a hell of a lot better than "what about infringe don't you understand". That perspective has not been the law of the US for a single day of its 220+ years.

 

[MTGamecock]

When it comes to expansion/modification of the NICS checks, it feels like we're wasting a lot of energy and heartburn arguing and debating a point that is relevant to a very small percentage of the gun crimes (those committed by individuals who were allowed to buy a gun but-for a more robust background check). My guess is that is a very small percentage of the gun crimes. If you have a hole in the bottom of your boat, you dont waste energy arguing about what type of canopy would best keep the rain out of the boat. We could modify the NICS check process up one side and down the other, but we all know it would have minimal impact on Chicago's murder rate, for example.

Make no mistake, we are being led into this debate by people who are much more concerned with impeding and blocking gun sales than they are about impeding and blocking violent crime. If they would demonstrate a good faith effort to address violent crime, perhaps I would be more willing to debate the finer points of background checks, but until they do, I must assume that their real target is me, rather than criminals.

 

[TheJason]

Where’s my pocket constitution.....

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I will admit, “you” is a bad choice of words. I believe I corrected it in one of my post but yes, “A person” is better suited. I have read your viewpoint and frankly I don’t think it makes a damn bit of sense. Anyway, I believe my point has been received and we can agree to disagree.

Gun Laws by State: Best States for Gun Owners (2022)

Wondering what are the best states for gun owners? Read this analysis of gun laws by state to find out which states are the best for responsible gun owners.

www.az-defenders.com

I own a bunch of guns, have an CC permit, and have lived and owned firearms in #4, #39, and #49, all within the last 5 years. I'd like to think I have a decent understanding what it's like to buy/own guns under various types of policies, but I'm open to differing perspectives.

I get irritated by people regurgitating bottom shelf arguments at me like I'm Karen from SF who has never touched a gun.

 

[Racrawfo1013]

Gun Laws by State: Best States for Gun Owners (2022)

Wondering what are the best states for gun owners? Read this analysis of gun laws by state to find out which states are the best for responsible gun owners.

www.az-defenders.com

I own a bunch of guns, have an CC permit, and have lived and owned firearms in #4, #39, and #49, all within the last 5 years. I'd like to think I have a decent understanding what it's like to buy/own guns under various types of policies, but I'm open to differing perspectives.

I get irritated by people regurgitating bottom shelf arguments at me like I'm Karen from SF who has never touched a gun.

Give me a percentage of crime that will be stopped due to a 30 day background check...

 

[VikingsGuy]

Give me a percentage of crime that will be stopped due to a 30 day background check...

First off, 30 seems long, but 7 or 10 doesn’t. I don’t have a handy link but I recall that a few thousand times a year LEOs have to deal with ineligible purchasers that timeout on 3 day but prove to be unlawful when review is done. Similarly, how many lawful possessors are saved by getting a gun at 3 days who wouldn’t at 7?

To an earlier point - we are wasting time on things that don’t move the needle either way.

 

[FI460]

Give me a percentage of crime that will be stopped due to a 30 day background check...

Likely not a large reduction in homicide, but it may have prevented the tragedy that just occurred in Atlanta.

It would almost certainly reduce suicides though, which is the bigger issue.

 

[Racrawfo1013]

First off, 30 seems long, but 7 or 10 doesn’t. I don’t have a handy link but I recall that a few thousand times a year LEOs have to deal with ineligible purchasers that timeout on 3 day but prove to be unlawful when review is done. Similarly, how many lawful possessors are saved by getting a gun at 3 days who wouldn’t at 7?

To an earlier point - we are wasting time on things that don’t move the needle either way.

I would agree, push the money into mental health and programs for at risk children in challenging environments. I really think there should be more studies done how influential violence in video games has on an individual. JMO

 

[Racrawfo1013]

Likely not a large reduction in homicide, but it may have prevented the tragedy that just occurred in Atlanta.

It would almost certainly reduce suicides though, which is the bigger issue.

I personally think, my opinion only that the Atlanta would have carried the attack out one way another, legal gun purchase or not. As for suicides, who’s to say individuals don’t use another method?

 

[DouglasR]

Likely not a large reduction in homicide, but it may have prevented the tragedy that just occurred in Atlanta.

It would almost certainly reduce suicides though, which is the bigger issue.

I’m not saying suicide isn’t a terrible, horrible, awful thing, but if they want to go, let them go.

 

[FI460]

I personally think, my opinion only that the Atlanta would have carried the attack out one way another, legal gun purchase or not. As for suicides, who’s to say individuals don’t use another method?

They do attempt other methods, but guns are an order of magnitude more efficient. I think the evidence is building that restricting access to firearms is going to reduce suicides. A waiting period could give many troubled people the hassle they need to rethink things.

I’m not saying suicide isn’t a terrible, horrible, awful thing, but if they want to go, let them go.

I wholly reject that. Many suicide survivors regret their attempt and are glad that they failed. Waiting periods would certainly reduce spontaneous suicides.

This is where the middle ground is. 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides. By reducing that number we could take away one of the antis biggest talking points.