Home› Main Category› Second Amendment/Politics
snake284
Senior MemberPosts: 22,394 Senior Member
Another Alternative to Back ground checks at gun shows Etc.
snake284
Senior MemberPosts: 22,394 Senior Member
OK, we all have a problem with background checks at gun shows and on a personal level of firearm exchange (Non Retail). I have thought about this and I have a suggestion to throw out to everyone for your evaluation to see what kinds of problems this idea would generate.
OK Say we did the background checks up front. What if we, all gun owners and potential gun owners underwent an FBI background check? What if they give us a Photo ID card saying we can buy firearms because da..da..da... Would that be any different than getting the check done on the scene when buying a gun? Just show em your card and buy the gun. That would prevent anyone knowing when and if you bought, inherited, or were gifted a gun. No 4473 required if you're not dealing with a Licensed FFL dealer.
Another issue, I don't have to have a background check because I have a Texas CCW which serves as a background check because before I got my CCW I had to have a background check. Now my CCW is good until 2021. Not sure if I need another background check for the next CCW renewal or not. But that ID card that says I'm eligible to buy fire arms should be valid as long as my CCW is. This card wouldn't have to be redundant with a CCW. If you have a CCW you shouldn't need a Background check ID card, your CCW is your ID card.
Lots of questions and I know some purist may have objection to this proposal because there's always somebody that does. But this is really no different than it already is for us if we have a CCW or we buy a gun from the CMP or other government entity. I myself would be willing to have a card or an ID that says we are eligible to buy firearms. Actually, I already do, it's called my CCW. Is this too much akin to registration? To me it's no more restrictive than the system already is.
This background check would notify a salesman or saleslady or anyone involved in the sale or transfer of a firearm if someone is mentally competent to own a firearm just like they do now, only this would cover gun shows, inheritance, gifts, etc. without having to do a special check which would flag the purchase. This way your right and your freedom to sell or give away a firearm as a non dealer wouldn't be hindered or flagged.
This biggie now is that everyone wants to insure that no crazies or religiously fanatic people have guns legally. We all know that most of these mass shooters are usually either religiously motivated or crazy. But for any reason I think any sane gun owner would agree, that one way or another, second amendment not withstanding, that if someone's crazy or a religious fanatic, OR a habitual criminal, or a violator of family violence issue, he doesn't need to be having a firearm.
If someone wants to procure a firearm that doesn't meet the criteria make him do it the hard way. not under the guise of doing it legally. It's already like that and if a scumbag wants a firearm all these laws aren't going to stop him which shows the true futility in any gun law. This admittedly is a form of appeasement like any other gun law. It appeases those who are anal about guns and think a law will prevent a tragedy. That's the only restriction that I can think of that's a valid restriction for the 2A.
OK Say we did the background checks up front. What if we, all gun owners and potential gun owners underwent an FBI background check? What if they give us a Photo ID card saying we can buy firearms because da..da..da... Would that be any different than getting the check done on the scene when buying a gun? Just show em your card and buy the gun. That would prevent anyone knowing when and if you bought, inherited, or were gifted a gun. No 4473 required if you're not dealing with a Licensed FFL dealer.
Another issue, I don't have to have a background check because I have a Texas CCW which serves as a background check because before I got my CCW I had to have a background check. Now my CCW is good until 2021. Not sure if I need another background check for the next CCW renewal or not. But that ID card that says I'm eligible to buy fire arms should be valid as long as my CCW is. This card wouldn't have to be redundant with a CCW. If you have a CCW you shouldn't need a Background check ID card, your CCW is your ID card.
Lots of questions and I know some purist may have objection to this proposal because there's always somebody that does. But this is really no different than it already is for us if we have a CCW or we buy a gun from the CMP or other government entity. I myself would be willing to have a card or an ID that says we are eligible to buy firearms. Actually, I already do, it's called my CCW. Is this too much akin to registration? To me it's no more restrictive than the system already is.
This background check would notify a salesman or saleslady or anyone involved in the sale or transfer of a firearm if someone is mentally competent to own a firearm just like they do now, only this would cover gun shows, inheritance, gifts, etc. without having to do a special check which would flag the purchase. This way your right and your freedom to sell or give away a firearm as a non dealer wouldn't be hindered or flagged.
This biggie now is that everyone wants to insure that no crazies or religiously fanatic people have guns legally. We all know that most of these mass shooters are usually either religiously motivated or crazy. But for any reason I think any sane gun owner would agree, that one way or another, second amendment not withstanding, that if someone's crazy or a religious fanatic, OR a habitual criminal, or a violator of family violence issue, he doesn't need to be having a firearm.
If someone wants to procure a firearm that doesn't meet the criteria make him do it the hard way. not under the guise of doing it legally. It's already like that and if a scumbag wants a firearm all these laws aren't going to stop him which shows the true futility in any gun law. This admittedly is a form of appeasement like any other gun law. It appeases those who are anal about guns and think a law will prevent a tragedy. That's the only restriction that I can think of that's a valid restriction for the 2A.
Daddy, what's an enabler?
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
Replies
Honestly, it's not the worst idea on the planet and might make paperwork for gun stores a lot easier. However, on the same token, I could see the government attempting to make it restrictive by assigning a very high fee or intentionally delaying the approval process. There is no easy answer here, and like it or not as large scale shootings continue to occur the public opinion will be more easily swayed into the anti-gun side of the argument.
That's really just a long winded way of saying I have no clue.
"Slow is smooth, smooth is fast, and speed is the economy of motion" - Scott Jedlinski
I don't want to have to get government permission to exercise a core, fundamental Constitutional right. I especially don't wan the government to schedule me for regular background checks under the assumption I might, someday want to buy a firearm, establishing that they control all access to a lawful product. That would be similar to having to submit to regular breathalyzers tests to determine if your a drunk and unable to operate a motor vehicle, or take a literacy test to "properly" vote. Oh, wait, we tried that one already...
I realize the point of the argument is, but no, we do not have to meekly sit back and let them roll slowly over our rights. A background check presupposes one is a criminal and unable to legally complete the transaction, until you affirmatively prove your innocence.
Perhaps my attitude is simply because I am a born/bred desert rat from Arizona, voted five years running by G&A as the best state for firearms freedom.
Yeah, but your have no clue is very close to my clue, which is also NONE, LOL!
Like I said, this is all appeasement to the anal and antis or in other words it's a way of making those that believe you can legislate this crap a little more comfortable thinking we can stop those that shouldn't have guns from obtaining them. Some people just think there should be a law for every scenario.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
Every compromise with the shrieking carnival hawkers that come out of the woodwork for new gun laws is a small erosion of constitution, and there have been too many, already.
We have that in Illinois, it is called the Firearm Owners Identification Card, or FOID. You need it to buy firearms or ammunition; you need it to posses firearms or ammunition. The program is so "good" that it exempts Illinois from some provision of the Brady Bill.
That being said, there are lots of examples of people being convicted of felonies, drug offenses, and/or domestic violence and not having their FOID card revoked.
See this article: https://www.wbez.org/shows/wbez-news/illinois-outrageously-insane-gun-license-loophole/a80f8eb6-af01-4697-8e9b-32253d3b25e6
The problem with the 2A all that isn't addressed in it. Those that wrote it and put it in the Constitution, the dumb language not withstanding (Why the hell did they put that crap about a Militia in it?), never fathomed people behaving like they do now.
Our 2A rights are on the verge of being challenged as they have never been before. When you add up the antis and the people in the middle who perpetually don't make their minds up one way or the other, you find we lose. We're outnumbered. To sit back and say I will not is the fastest way there is to give your rights up. Nobody said it's going to be easy and there are no guarantees that the political party in power won't stomp on your rights. It takes each and every one of us being vigilant to insure our rights aren't trampled upon. Having said all that, I didn't mean everyone would be indiscriminately subjected to a back ground check. Only those who wish to purchase firearms legally would be. Do you carry? If so, if you're doing it legally, you've already been subjected to a back ground check (unless you live in a constitutional carry state, which I feel will come under challenge soon). So that part has already been taken care of. To a legal gun buyer this is already being done. But under the present law the back ground check is carried out at purchase. Therefore to do this at a gun show it would no doubt require an FFL and a 4473. Then there's a paper trail to the gun and to the buyer. The argument from the antis is there's no safety net such as a back ground check to insure the purchaser is sane and not a criminal. But if you have a document, a card or whatever, with your positive ID on it and saying that you are of sound mind and have no criminal record and have not been convicted of family violence, then you are clear to buy a firearm then this should negate the need to do all that at purchase, plus it should placate the worries that someone who is unfit to own a gun of getting one, legally that is.
In answer to the darkened part of your post, you already have to. This would only let you do that before the fact where it would not interfere with purchases at a gun show or gifts and purchases between neighbors or relatives.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
This, and also SCOTUS has directly stated that although the 2A does protect an individual's right to possess a firearm, it can also be subjected to additional regulation. Heller v DC, I think (can't remember, too lazy to Google).
"Slow is smooth, smooth is fast, and speed is the economy of motion" - Scott Jedlinski
No matter what preventative measures they take to keeps guns out of the hands of people who have no business with them....bad stuff is still going to happen.
Look, let's get real, the Feinsteins of the world and their ilk aren't going to be happy until our firearms are piled in the city square being run over by a D-8Cat.....all this other stuff is just a lead-in to this...their logical, ultimate conclusion.
Sent from my SM-S907VL using Tapatalk
That makes sense to me, and apparently you.But unfortunately it is not real clear in this day and time to everyone. I still wish they would have left out this decorative language.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
Yes, true.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
Now then, imagine if EVERY gun owner in the country had to be processed for their "good guy card"
I can see waiting times eventually getting DOWN to 3-5 years
FYI, according to the suppressor association, the actual time it takes the BATF to do 1 NFA form/background check is <15 minutes. The rest of the wait is just the time it takes for them to get to the box your paperwork was filed in after they removed the payment/payment information.
Edited to add:
I'll PASS :nono:
AND.... what's to say that, during that waiting period, the guy develops a drinking problem, goes off his nut, commits domestic violence, is now unable to legally acquire a firearm and then lo and behold,his "good guy card" shows up in the mail....and he goes and commits some high profile public mayhem
And in about 10 minutes some rocket scientist figures out "the system is flawed" (which anyone with an ounce of sense knew when the thing was enacted) and here we go again....
I began carrying legally in the state of Arizona when I was 16, which was lawful unencumbered open carry, legal since the states founding in 1911. It was unremarked upon and normal, no permit, license, waiting period, FOID, none of that. We got our first CCW law in 1994 and continuously improved it until it became Constitutional Carry in 2010. We are going on 8 years as a Constitutional Carry state and I don't see any challenges coming down the pike here locally, just the usual ones that we deal with, the Calirefugees and Chicago expats in Tucson and Phoenix. I didn't have to pass my first background check until I went into the military. I didn't pass a background check for a firearm until the Brady Act became law, and that was only at gun shops. AZ law specifically prohibits background checks for lawful private transfers of property, BTW, only required of an FFL, and registration is also specifically forbidden, to any political entity lower than the state. So, no, your statement is not universally true, and lawful open carry happens daily in the several states who recognize the right to do so. As Constitutional Carry has expanded, not contracted, even under a 100% Democrat controlled US government, I don't see this pendulum swinging abruptly back the other way right this minute. Of course, I stay active and keep people informed of leftist activities, bother my elected officials regularly, and vote in every election. Therefore, as long as we can keep working together and not rolling over, we can win, as we have demonstrated over the years.
I admire your attitude and am similar in that. BUT, I think if we have many more of these type mass shootings public opinion will change unless we are proactive. The thing is, you already have background checks and they want FEDERAL Law to extend them to gun shows and at personal level. It doesn't make much difference what attitude is in Arizona. We're talking federal law and you having legislators like John McCain I doubt on the Federal Level Arizona will stand hard against any federal law. What I suggested is already being done with the exception of back ground checks at gun shows or between two individuals. That is coming federally, watch and see. Yeah it sucks. But what I suggested is not giving in to the Antis, but rather keeping them at bay and out of our personal business.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
Of course, I don't have an answer either.
Adam J. McCleod
And what's to say a meteorite collides with earth tonight and all life as we know it is extinguished. It could happen. But I'm not living my life around such a scenario.
All I'm suggesting is a system that is already in place to keep more intrusion by government out of the picture. Also, I would wager a large majority of this forum already has a carry permit. And when we go to buy a gun we get around the BGC, because??? We already had it when we got our carry permit. Nobody threw a fit when we got our carry permits. We wanted a carry permit and had nothing to hide by submitting to a BGC. While we still have a majority in both legislative bodies and a gun friendly federal government why not put something in place that would shut down this incessant cry for back ground checks at Gun Shows and for private sales?
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
You do realize that people with concealed carry permits still do stupid and even criminal stuff....right? Admittedly it's a small percentage,.very small...but it still happens... it's hard enough to keep track of this stuff on a state level....a federal system would be a freaking nightmare
I'm not saying it's a cureall for idiots. I do realize that there isn't one. Non of this stuff will stop a purp hell bent on shooting a place up. This suggestion is only to pacify the dummies that think there's a law to cure every ill. And of course there isn't. But the leftest or antis or whatever ya wanna call them say they want back ground checks at gun show sales and for personal sales. That's why I say give them one up front. Keep the Form 4473 out of the gun shows.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
The only problem with your appeasement logic is the libs will neve be satisfied. Anything you give up will be great we have that now let’s go for something else. Their goal is to steadily chip away until it’s all gone.
AKA: Former Founding Member
I just can't see this as appeasement, I see it as getting ahead of the game, that in keeping gun show sales and non retail gifting and sales on a personal level, separate from regular retail sales, sales in retail establshments, LGSs, Wally World, Academy, Dicks, all the usual. Because the way things stand right now, if we have another shooting like the one in Southerland Springs, I really believe something will be done and it will be hard. I believe if this happens what we will see come out of it will be something where we lose a lot and we will never get back.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
So be it, but I don't.Appeasement would be saying "OK give us a back ground check before we buy anything at a gun show and let me see that 4473 so I can fill it out. That would be giving into the left. But having undergone a BGC in advance, which unless you live in a costitutional carry state, if you carry, you've already had a BGC, you hand your card over and say ]my back grou"Here's my BGC card, and since you're not a retail dealer I don't need to fill out that 4473. Now can I have my gun?
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.