LopeHunter
Well-known member
My conclusion as well. Do not feed the troll.
Expanded background checks
- Thread starter RobG
- Start date
My conclusion as well. Do not feed the troll.
RobG
Well-known member
Well you are wrong. Sorry to give that impression.
I don't know enough about the issue to have a strong opinion on the matter which is why I asked what was wrong with the bill. The answers seem to be that it won't help (justified with weak arguments imo) or that it would have prevented transactions between friends or relatives. I know several people who objected to it because of that latter claim, but it apparently was taken care of by an amendment.
Last edited:
RobG
Well-known member
As I understand it, it isn't really a matter of just not enforcing the laws - it is just that the system has been rigged so it is impossible to enforce the laws.
As I mentioned above, part of the reason appears to be that the NRA has made sure the agencies that do enforcement are hamstrung. It would also be hard to catch someone who is not allowed to have a gun without violating the 4th amendment. How would you feel if you were required to prove you had the right to own a gun (e.g. that you weren't a felon) at the request of any officer? I'd have a huge problem with having to produce papers.
It's logical to assume that if background checks were required it would be easier to catch people selling to felons. As it is now, it is de facto legal because there is no way for a gun-show seller to know if a customer is a felon, thus it is impossible to enforce. Furthermore, it is unconstitutional to stop that person after he has bought the gun and make him prove that he has the right to own it.
I think we are at the point of diminishing returns with this... thanks to those people who decided not to be jerks on this volatile issue...
Who cares if people were selling to felons when NOTHING would be done about it. There is jack squat in the bill to do anything that would have an end result of more people thrown in jail. That is the only thing some thugs understand, a punch in the head or jail time. When you have a prosecution rate at current levels, all new laws are a mute point. Same with immigration, we have a problem from lack of law enforcement, end of story
Schmalts- using your theory...we should have no laws because the prosecution rate is so low...look at how many people break the speed limit and the few people caught. Thus we should have no speed limit? Your logic astounds me...must be your pressure cooker's fault?
RUT JUNKEY
Well-known member
I don't think that it what was meant by that. What he is trying to get through to some of you, is that, IF we aren't going to enforce the laws that we ALREADY have, then. . .why do we even have them??? I don't understand what its going to take to make some people understand, that more laws/restrictions/background checks, are not going to help. Criminals and nut jobs don't follow the rules, so, all we are doing is adding "extra" to the already law abiding gun owners. I'm all for better background checks if that will appease the masses. . .but its not going to help, lets just be honest.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Since the liberal spun statute of limitations for tasteless inferences has obviously lapsed, here's a troll pic for a troll thread;
MinnesotaHunter
Well-known member
When are people going to realize that this has much more to do with politics than reducing gun violence, just like health care, immigration, etc. This argument is trying to rationalize this bill from a practical/problem solving standpoint, but from what I see this is just politics. How many loopholes are they really closing, and at what cost? Based on the data above it looks to me like the current background checks are pretty effective, and I have not seen evidence in any of the recent cases of gun violence, that are the catalyst for all of this, that the current legislation being pushed would have prevented these horrendous acts.
My sense in this is that the current legislation really accomplishes nothing in the way of reducing gun violence, and what they were trying to accomplish is to create legislation that seemed innocuous, that would be hard to argue is bad. kind of like easing us into the cold lake, with the goal of eventually going swimming. These "progressive" politicians have publicly stated that they want to limit gun ownership rights, and I am certain their ultimate goals have not changed.
I dare anyone of you to claim you would rather not have an M4 Carbine sitting at your side this morning if you were told to lock yourself in your house this morning because a terrorist was loose in your neighborhood. I have no respect for these weak, hand wringing politicians. Why do they push this idea that we should all be these neutered sheep, with no ability to defend ourselves, like it is some noble concept to be helpless.
I envy some of you who live in areas where you don't feel the sense that you need to worry about protecting yourself and your family. The other night my neighborhood was flooded with local sheriffs "looking for someone", but "it is nothing to worry about". My wife is not a gun person, I have only managed to get her out shooting twice in the last 12 years, but she felt better when I activated the alarm and got my M4 out.
Sorry for the rant. I am done now.
My sense in this is that the current legislation really accomplishes nothing in the way of reducing gun violence, and what they were trying to accomplish is to create legislation that seemed innocuous, that would be hard to argue is bad. kind of like easing us into the cold lake, with the goal of eventually going swimming. These "progressive" politicians have publicly stated that they want to limit gun ownership rights, and I am certain their ultimate goals have not changed.
I dare anyone of you to claim you would rather not have an M4 Carbine sitting at your side this morning if you were told to lock yourself in your house this morning because a terrorist was loose in your neighborhood. I have no respect for these weak, hand wringing politicians. Why do they push this idea that we should all be these neutered sheep, with no ability to defend ourselves, like it is some noble concept to be helpless.
I envy some of you who live in areas where you don't feel the sense that you need to worry about protecting yourself and your family. The other night my neighborhood was flooded with local sheriffs "looking for someone", but "it is nothing to worry about". My wife is not a gun person, I have only managed to get her out shooting twice in the last 12 years, but she felt better when I activated the alarm and got my M4 out.
Sorry for the rant. I am done now.
MinnesotaHunter
Well-known member
I'll pile on.
rhomas
Banned
The current NICS background check system already has been expanded since Columbine. Compare the form 4473 of today to the same form from 10 years ago. The current regulations and restrictions that were placed into law by FDR have been expanded several times over the years, Including under Reagan. All of them are in direct violation of the Second Amendment. With that being said, the problem with the recently proposed changes, would have required doctors to report patient information that doesn't necessarily indicate mental illness. Veterans with PTSD, could have been denied the right to own guns, even if their PTSD isn't a violent type of problem. People who have had strokes and other neurological problems and had to undergo psychiatric evaluations in the determination of the severity of their neurological functions would also be included in the reports. Then there is the fact that your Senator lied to you, Rob. The new background check proposal would have made it mandatory to complete a form 4473 and have a background check performed by a FFL for you to leave your family heirloom rifle or shotgun to your grandchildren, or even to loan one of your shotguns to a family member or a friend to go on a turkey hunt! See, the Democrats don't always tell us what's in a bill ( remember Pelosi's comments about the HCB). As for the BATFE, their list of rules and regulations for FFL dealers can be changed by a simple pen stroke, and the dealer only becomes aware of the change when a BATFE agent shows up in his place of business and sights him for a violation that he wasn't even aware, existed. There is already defacto registration in the record keeping requirements stipulated by BATFE, also, there is no absolute proof that the NICS files are purged every 90 days as provided under the current law. The stated purpose of several supporters of the expanded background checks was to "lay the groundwork for gun registration and eventual confiscation" that is a quote from Diane Feinstein, and Barbara Boxer, and the stated goal of the Brady Campaign and Michael Bloomberg's MAIG.
Furthermore, the anti-gun crowd has disseminated such lies as claiming that internet gun sales don't require background checks. We all know that when a gun is purchased over the internet, that gun must be shipped to an FFL dealer, who then must run a NICS background check and have a form 4473 completed by the purchaser, prior to the individual receiving the gun..........even though they have already paid the seller for the gun!
The proposed changes, would have increased the burden of licensed FFL holders to provide service and assess fees to the buyer and the seller at gun shows, in order to offset time lost by the dealer in selling his own merchandise. This (in my opinion) could have opened the door for unscrupulous individuals to acquire an FFL solely to run background checks and gouge both the buyer and seller at gun shows and for private sales between individuals. Who can say that those individuals might not be as truthful with their submission of the form 4473, considering that they have no vested interest in any merchandise or actual business, other than the initial cost of obtaining their FFL!
Also, remember that the proposed bill would have created the necessity for concealed permit holders to also have to undergo a background check for their purchases; a requirement that would be redundant, since we already have undergone a much more stringent background check in order to obtain our CWP in the first place!!!
These are the reasons the NRA, the GOA, the NAGR, and the Second Amendment Foundation, along with the various state organizations fought the proposed expanded background checks. Rob, I hope this summary answered your question thoroughly and accurately without being rude or inconsiderate. (Notice I didn't compare guns and cars at all!)
Furthermore, the anti-gun crowd has disseminated such lies as claiming that internet gun sales don't require background checks. We all know that when a gun is purchased over the internet, that gun must be shipped to an FFL dealer, who then must run a NICS background check and have a form 4473 completed by the purchaser, prior to the individual receiving the gun..........even though they have already paid the seller for the gun!
The proposed changes, would have increased the burden of licensed FFL holders to provide service and assess fees to the buyer and the seller at gun shows, in order to offset time lost by the dealer in selling his own merchandise. This (in my opinion) could have opened the door for unscrupulous individuals to acquire an FFL solely to run background checks and gouge both the buyer and seller at gun shows and for private sales between individuals. Who can say that those individuals might not be as truthful with their submission of the form 4473, considering that they have no vested interest in any merchandise or actual business, other than the initial cost of obtaining their FFL!
Also, remember that the proposed bill would have created the necessity for concealed permit holders to also have to undergo a background check for their purchases; a requirement that would be redundant, since we already have undergone a much more stringent background check in order to obtain our CWP in the first place!!!
These are the reasons the NRA, the GOA, the NAGR, and the Second Amendment Foundation, along with the various state organizations fought the proposed expanded background checks. Rob, I hope this summary answered your question thoroughly and accurately without being rude or inconsiderate. (Notice I didn't compare guns and cars at all!)
RUT JUNKEY
Well-known member
Maybe I'm the odd one out here, but, I have always had to fill out a 4473 when purchasing a gun...even though I have a Lifetime Concealed Carry permit issued by the state of Indiana and a Utah Concealed Carry permit. It doesn't bother me to fill them out, but, if I really don't have to, it may save me a little time. I've never heard of someone NOT filling one out regardless of what permits they have. Is it just an Indiana thing? Any clarification on this would be great. Thanks.
spook12
New member
All I ever do is give my dealer my CC permit,he fills out the forms and thats it. My understanding is that he doesn't have to perform the actual check.By the time I walk to the other side of the store and grab some ammo off the shelf he's done.
Rat Fink
Member
Everyone fills out a form if buying from a FFL. They don't have to call in all of the checks if you can prove you have already passed a NICS background check (ie concealed carry license).
RobG
Well-known member
Not rude at all... thanks for taking the time to write that. I don't believe a thing you said (kidding, but it is hard to verify what you said).
I wish there was an easy way verify the claim (either way) about the transfer of weapons between family members rather than just take people's word for it. Both the NRA and Tester (like all politicians) spin the facts. I have a fair amount of experience with both NRA and Tester. I am leery of any politician, but in the past Tester has been one of the best people in the Senate for protecting our 4th amendment rights against the DHS - a clear voice against the Patriot Act, FISA, and the other DHS empowerment plans. He worked on bills that were lauded by the NRA to protect our guns from the implications of the UN treaty, so I have a hard time believing he would lie, but I can't rule it out. On the other hand, I don't trust the NRA at all.
Bingo! As usual Matt gets the wrong idea. Let me give a theory that you can relate to. What would be the results if you made more speed limits and doubled up on the fines but took 98% of all the radar guns away from cops and refused to prosecute speeders? Is it really that hard to understand?
spook12
New member
Doesn't this data show that about 70,000 times a year someone who we as a society have decided isn't allowed to purchase a firearm wasn't allowed to? If the purpose of a background check is to keep firearms out the hands of people who for whatever reason don't have the right to have one, then it appears to have some effect.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
....it only shows that they weren't allowed to obtain a firearm by legal means. It'against the law for a felon to attempt to purchase. Would it not be prudent to prosecute more?
spook12
New member
ABSOLUTELY!
''It's against the law for a felon to attempt to purchase''
Yes it is and what do we do? We set up a system that allows them to make said purchase(after being denied) on the open market.
