Expanded background checks

[RobG]

Hi guys,
I'm so caught up in the MT legislative nightmare I haven't been following the national scene. What is the problem with the proposed expanded background checks?

 

[whiskeydog]

Hi guys,
I'm so caught up in the MT legislative nightmare I haven't been following the national scene. What is the problem with the proposed expanded background checks?

it won't solve any of the problems

 

[LopeHunter]

The tragedies that get everyone's attention involve multiple existing laws being broken. Having another law will unlikely be any more deterence than the existing laws. Chicago and D.C. have more laws than Dallas or Houston related to guns and yet what metro areas have more murders per capita? Chicago and D.C. Criminals inthe U.S. will always get guns. Houses are broken into every day.

Is a valid question to ask why the U.S. has different challenges than Canada when it comes to mass killings by young males. The TV shows and video games in both countries are similar so the impact of viewing violence does not seem the Silver Bullet to explain the killings.

Laws that restrict the liberty of the majority in a flawed attempt to fix an issue is not good democracy. I do not want the government requiring me to submit a list of books I own or of the churches I attend.

Impaired persons get behind the wheel of vehicles everyday in the U.S. and innocent people die. More than die in mass shootings. Should we outlaw cars? Should we require the ignition not work unless you pass a test for impairment (breath test or maybe interact with a touch screen that requires rapid responses)? Should we make cars smaller? Less powerful? The larger vehicles probably inflict more damage when used by an impaired drive so perhaps outlaw those vehicles.

I just have not seen a solution for what we all want which is responsible behavior...with a gun, in a vehicle, with a machete, with chemicals, with fireworks, etc.

 

[RobG]

The tragedies that get everyone's attention involve multiple existing laws being broken. Having another law will unlikely be any more deterence than the existing laws. Chicago and D.C. have more laws than Dallas or Houston related to guns and yet what metro areas have more murders per capita? Chicago and D.C. Criminals inthe U.S. will always get guns. Houses are broken into every day.

Is a valid question to ask why the U.S. has different challenges than Canada when it comes to mass killings by young males. The TV shows and video games in both countries are similar so the impact of viewing violence does not seem the Silver Bullet to explain the killings.

Laws that restrict the liberty of the majority in a flawed attempt to fix an issue is not good democracy. I do not want the government requiring me to submit a list of books I own or of the churches I attend.

Impaired persons get behind the wheel of vehicles everyday in the U.S. and innocent people die. More than die in mass shootings. Should we outlaw cars? Should we require the ignition not work unless you pass a test for impairment (breath test or maybe interact with a touch screen that requires rapid responses)? Should we make cars smaller? Less powerful? The larger vehicles probably inflict more damage when used by an impaired drive so perhaps outlaw those vehicles.

I just have not seen a solution for what we all want which is responsible behavior...with a gun, in a vehicle, with a machete, with chemicals, with fireworks, etc.

I'm not picking a fight... just probing the issue a bit. These analogies never hold up. Cars are banned for dangerous offenders like drunk drivers so that line of reasoning doesn't even have a basis. A more apt question would be "should we not take away drunk driver's license because some drive anyway?" or "should we not have police since we can't stop all crime?"

Maybe parallel questions:
Should we not check IDs for ALCOHOL because it is already illegal for minors to drink?
Should we not check IDs for GUNS because it is already illegal for felons to own one?

More people were killed on U.S. soil by guns yesterday then by all terrorist acts combined since 9/11. Why do we trash the 4th amendment to allow warrentless wiretaps of U.S. citizens' conversations to catch suspected terrorist (which doesn't even appear to have produced much results) but we allow convicted felons to buy an illegal weapon without questions asked?

These are just questions that quickly came to mind. They seem far more relevant than the typical NRA ones. Like alcohol, the seller would be taking a risk that he'd be selling to an undercover agent so he would comply; therefore, the "enforcement can't be done without gun registration" argument seems bunk. (For all practical reasons parties that know each other wouldn't be required have to do checks because they know they aren't selling to an agent, so that issue seems bunk too, but even then going to a dealer to have a background check done isn't that big of a deal.)

I'm not familiar with the bill in question so I can't say if I'm for/against. However, I haven't heard a compelling reason not to require background checks for all purchases, just these platitudes.

Disclaimer:any nonsensical statements above are due to my lack of sleep....

 

[ismith]

I'm not picking a fight... just probing the issue a bit. These analogies never hold up. Cars are banned for dangerous offenders like drunk drivers so that line of reasoning doesn't even have a basis. A more apt question would be "should we not take away drunk driver's license because some drive anyway?" or "should we not have police since we can't stop all crime?"

Maybe parallel questions:
Should we not check IDs for ALCOHOL because it is already illegal for minors to drink?
Should we not check IDs for GUNS because it is already illegal for felons to own one?

More people were killed on U.S. soil by guns yesterday then by all terrorist acts combined since 9/11. Why do we trash the 4th amendment to allow warrentless wiretaps of U.S. citizens' conversations to catch suspected terrorist (which doesn't even appear to have produced much results) but we allow convicted felons to buy an illegal weapon without questions asked?

These are just questions that quickly came to mind. They seem far more relevant than the typical NRA ones. Like alcohol, the seller would be taking a risk that he'd be selling to an undercover agent so he would comply; therefore, the "enforcement can't be done without gun registration" argument seems bunk. (For all practical reasons parties that know each other wouldn't be required have to do checks because they know they aren't selling to an agent, so that issue seems bunk too, but even then going to a dealer to have a background check done isn't that big of a deal.)

I'm not familiar with the bill in question so I can't say if I'm for/against. However, I haven't heard a compelling reason not to require background checks for all purchases, just these platitudes.

Disclaimer:any nonsensical statements above are due to my lack of sleep....

Thinking expanded background checks will prevent gun crimes is like expecting meth dealers to follow the legal age of consent laws while dealing with their customers. So what would you be accomplishing besides adding more tax agents to the payroll and creating a de facto firearms registration?

 

[RUT JUNKEY]

I also agree that more in depth background checks WILL NOT WORK. I have zero problem with them being more in depth, heck, I would submit hair folicle, blood, or what ever bodily fluid they want to check. . .but I am not a criminal or crazy in the head ( not proven) so I have zero to worry about. Criminals will not purchase their guns at a show or at a legit shop, they steal theirs or buy in back alleys, so, how would more checks catch these guys..the ones we need to catch? Also, they are talking about the mental part of the checks. . .what if you have never been to the Dr to get checked for any mental illness? People that are close to you know your a little off in the head, but, how would a gun shop owner know this if you have never been diagnosed with an illness??? Sure it will stop the very few that have had a psych evaluation, but, how about the thousands that have never been diagnosed??? This whole thing stinks of something else in my opinion. ok stepping down now. . .lol

 

[noharleyyet]

,

I haven't heard a compelling reason not to require background checks for all purchases, just these platitudes.

Notwithstanding the platitudes espoused by Obama and ilk's traveling taxpayer funded theatre directly following the tragedy? Did you catch skeet and plug's chastising pout conference yesterday? The dude is a walking/mostly talking thesaurus of platitudes.

 

[pointingdogsrule]

I'm not picking a fight... just probing the issue a bit. These analogies never hold up. Cars are banned for dangerous offenders like drunk drivers so that line of reasoning doesn't even have a basis. A more apt question would be "should we not take away drunk driver's license because some drive anyway?" or "should we not have police since we can't stop all crime?"


Disclaimer:any nonsensical statements above are due to my lack of sleep....

Rob: I agree with most of the above stated by others. I do not want the GOV. to know what guns I own (registration). With that stated your analogy of the "drivers" is flawed. Driving is a "PRIVILAGE" and not protected under the US constitution. The second amendment protects my right to "bear arms"... there is quite a difference between the two.

good luck to all
the dog

 

[Topgun 30-06]

RobG---The legislation that went down yesterday would have required a background check even for you to transfer a gun to a close relative in your own houselhold, not just for transfers at a gun show. The other two pieces of legislation on magazine capacity and the so-called "assault rifle" ban also went down 60-40.

 

[schmalts]

,

Notwithstanding the platitudes espoused by Obama and ilk's traveling taxpayer funded theatre directly following the tragedy? Did you catch skeet and plug's chastising pout conference yesterday? The dude is a walking/mostly talking thesaurus of platitudes.

He sure told us!

 

[noharleyyet]

He sure told us!

It's like the one eyed man delivering unto the blind.

 

[warmer]

It's like the one eyed man delivering unto the blind.

"In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king!"

 

[Tom]

It seems so obvious that allowing staff in schools to have guns would be a major deterent to some enraged and crazy person attacking a school.

 

[RobG]

RobG---The legislation that went down yesterday would have required a background check even for you to transfer a gun to a close relative in your own houselhold, not just for transfers at a gun show.

I don't know the details of the bill (which is why I'm not for/against it), but this seems to be a prime concern. However, after some thought, why is this a problem? A background check is quick and painless (assuming you can get one at a gun dealer), but even if you don't want to go to that trouble there is no practical way that this transaction could be prosecuted unless you were dumb enough to intentionally document that you did it w/o a check or not be aware that your relative is a secret agent trying to bust your for illegal arms trade.

This is in contrast to how it can be enforced with gun dealers. In that case it is easy to verify that they aren't doing background checks - send a person with a record in and have them try to buy a gun.

To my knowledge there was no requirement for registration in this bill.

I didn't see anything compelling in the responses above, but keep the comments coming as long as you don't get personal.

 

[putm2sleep]

A background check is not quick and painless - have you tried to buy a gun through the process. You might wait 3 hours - you might wait 3 weeks!

 

[mtmiller]

Took me 10 minutes a couple weeks ago.

 

[tjones]

I clicked OYOA and ended up on the "Fire". Crazy.

 

[CabinFever]

A background check is not quick and painless - have you tried to buy a gun through the process. You might wait 3 hours - you might wait 3 weeks!

Took me 10 minutes a couple weeks ago.

A few weeks ago it took me 15 minutes if that to walk out with a new Glock.

 

[RobG]

A background check is not quick and painless - have you tried to buy a gun through the process. You might wait 3 hours - you might wait 3 weeks!

It has been a while, but 10-15 minutes is what I recall.

By the way, I just got an email from Tester that claimed the bill as amended did not require background checks among friends or family members:

The Manchin-Toomey amendment would have made our Second Amendment rights stronger. It ensured that you do not need a background check for transactions among friends or family members. It provided safe harbor to hunters and others who have a gun, but travel through a state with tougher gun laws. Under the plan, a law-abiding citizen could have still purchased a gun without a problem – but criminals and folks who are violently mentally-ill could not.

I understand that politicians spin the heck out of things so I'd be interested in any information to counter his claim.

 

[Rat Fink]

I know that some local shops here charge between 35 and 50 dollars to do an FFL transfer which is basically what the expanded background check will require. Do you guys really think it's ok to increase your cost per gun for used guns by that much? I sure as hell don't. It's a free ticket to get raped by ffl holders to do transfers for private sales. No thanks.

Back in the day when I was required to do background checks to buy a gun it never took more than 15 minutes to get it done. Now I don't even have to worry about it. Just fill out the form and pay.