INGO'ers REQUIRE background checks??

[Giddaltti]

I voted yes, our cars are registered, to vol. @ school you need a background check, we've already gone through a background check to get our LTCH. I don't see any issue, with this, and this should not be confused with a registery which will not happen. I also agree with LaPierre, the system is broke.

 

[LEaSH]

I voted yes, our cars are registered, to vol. @ school you need a background check, we've already gone through a background check to get our LTCH. I don't see any issue, with this, and this should not be confused with a registery which will not happen. I also agree with LaPierre, the system is broke.

I'm not confusing background checks with a registry. I'm saying that it wont do anything, and then we will move to a registry. Leftist are not going anywhere after whatever happens in the next few months. Whatever they get wont be enough. They'll keep coming.

Do you believe that 40% of all firearm transfers are private?

 

[Spazzmodicus]

I voted yes, our cars are registered, to vol. @ school you need a background check, we've already gone through a background check to get our LTCH. I don't see any issue, with this, and this should not be confused with a registery which will not happen. I also agree with LaPierre, the system is broke.

So you actually trust the Nobama admistration to tell the truth about anything? They've lied through their teeth about everything, Fast & Furious, etc.....what makes you think they're telling the truth about not keeping records? The word "naive" comes to mind.

 

[the1kidd03]

I'm not confusing background checks with a registry. I'm saying that it wont do anything, and then we will move to a registry.

Do you believe that 40% of all firearm transfers are private?

THAT is the part that people are missing.

Requiring checks will not do anything. So their next push will be for registry which will allow for more strict enforcement and simply pave the way for even more strict legislation.

 

[TopDog]

THAT is the part that people are missing.

Requiring checks will not do anything. So their next push will be for registry which will allow for more strict enforcement and simply pave the way for even more strict legislation.

This exactly. I voted no because as with any law / rule / regulation it will ONLY have an effect on law abiding citizens. Criminals will follow no such a law, so what difference does it make if its on the books? Laws on the books are not enforced now.

I firmly believe that the left has one and only one goal in mind. Total and absolute disarmament of the citizens of the United States. If they have to do it one small step at a time then fine. Any infringement is a step closer to disarmament. First universal background checks, then registry then confiscation.

If you have any delusion that the only goal of the left is total disarmament you need to wake up. Listen to what the lunatic anti gun Democrats say openly about disarming Americans.

 

[SERparacord]

I have no way of checking backgrounds on a dark Chicago street corner.

 

[Scarecrow]

Don't sell to this guy. RTV6 - Convicted murderer mistakenly released from prison - Local Story

 

[Arm America]

So you're out eating with your family. A crazed maniac comes into the restaurant swinging a ball bat and barely misses your wife's head. You shoot the guy in the leg because you were feeling compassionate and didn't want to kill him. You're tried and convicted of attempted murder and now going bye bye to bubba for 10 years leaving your family to fend for themselves.

Sorry dude but your statement sounds a bit self-righteous and left-wing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dream up what ever scenario you choose!

I passed the background check.
I have a license to carry which affords me the privilege to legally protect my family, myself and others if I choose to.

I find it unlikely that I would be convicted of
"your attempted murder conviction" because I chose
to defend my wife or myself.

I have a very limited amount of compassion,
somehow, I just don't see me showing it towards
"your crazed maniac" fictional character.

 

[Kedric]

I want to be able to go to a local gun store and buy a machine gun and leave like I had just bought an ice cream cone

^^^ THIS! ^^^

 

[arthrimus]

The answer is no and I'll tell you why. If you believe that the right to defend one's life and property is in fact a God given, natural right, then you must believe that it is a right that belongs to ALL men, including felons. Why would a person who has committed a crime in the past, and paid the price deemed appropriate by the legal system for their crime, not be granted the same rights as you or I? Is it not the goal of our correctional system to rehabilitate these criminals, and help them to become productive components of society once more? How can we expect that to work if we treat them as less than men once their out again?

To deny a man his natural rights on any basis is to classify him as sub-human. Therefore if things are as they should be, and no man is denied his God given rights, then a background check would be an exerciser in futility at best, given that nothing that it could yield would have any effect on the legality of the sale.

If you believe that disarming past criminals is acceptable based on the notion that they are likely to commit crimes again and shouldn't be allowed to own a gun with which to commit them, then your arguments are as ignorant as the arguments presented by those who wish to take away our ability to defend ourselves. People intent on committing gun crimes will obtain a gun through illegal means if no legal option is available to them. Telling the felon that he can't legally own a gun for fear that he might use it to commit crimes again is like... telling a felon that he can't LEGALLY own a gun for fear that he might use it to commit crimes again. Sorry, I don't have anything to compare it to, but it's just so damned self explanatory already.

You can't engage in preemptive justice. These are laws of aggression, that assume guilt and restrict freedom based on that assumption. It's just as wrong to do it to a felon as it is to a law abiding citizen.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I voted yes, our cars are registered, to vol. @ school you need a background check, we've already gone through a background check to get our LTCH. I don't see any issue, with this, and this should not be confused with a registery which will not happen. I also agree with LaPierre, the system is broke.

Two problems:

1. The Constitution recognizes certain unalienable rights and specifies in the Second Amendment that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed which means that it shall not be infringed, contemporary practice of ignoring the Constitution notwithstanding.

2. Your other examples are done under state and local laws and are not specifically addressed in either the US or State Constitutions.

 

[GREEN607]

The answer is no and I'll tell you why. If you believe that the right to defend one's life and property is in fact a God given, natural right, then you must believe that it is a right that belongs to ALL men, including felons. Why would a person who has committed a crime in the past, and paid the price deemed appropriate by the legal system for their crime, not be granted the same rights as you or I? Is it not the goal of our correctional system to rehabilitate these criminals, and help them to become productive components of society once more? How can we expect that to work if we treat them as less than men once their out again?

To deny a man his natural rights on any basis is to classify him as sub-human. Therefore if things are as they should be, and no man is denied his God given rights, then a background check would be an exerciser in futility at best, given that nothing that it could yield would have any effect on the legality of the sale.

If you believe that disarming past criminals is acceptable based on the notion that they are likely to commit crimes again and shouldn't be allowed to own a gun with which to commit them, then your arguments are as ignorant as the arguments presented by those who wish to take away our ability to defend ourselves. People intent on committing gun crimes will obtain a gun through illegal means if no legal option is available to them. Telling the felon that he can't legally own a gun for fear that he might use it to commit crimes again is like... telling a felon that he can't LEGALLY own a gun for fear that he might use it to commit crimes again. Sorry, I don't have anything to compare it to, but it's just so damned self explanatory already.

You can't engage in preemptive justice. These are laws of aggression, that assume guilt and restrict freedom based on that assumption. It's just as wrong to do it to a felon as it is to a law abiding citizen.

I used to have a different opinion and school of thought on this. However, after carefully re-reading much of the ATF code regarding firearms sales and possession, when I was considering applying for my 01 FFL..... and researching OC and CC laws in various states, I came to learn that:

1) A felon by definiton (per the ATF) is anyone who has been convicted of a crime punishable by two years in prison AND sentenced to two years in prison.

Here's the big FAIL in this part of that code. In some states, a person can be convicted of FELONY non-support for being "in arrears" in their court-ordered child support.... w/o regard to them ever having been arrested (or not) for even a misdemeanor. This includes even if that person has only missed a payment or two. Depends on how hard the custodial parent pushes the issue with the District Attorney. Also, in some states, they can be SENTENCED to 2 years in prison at the sole discretion of the judge (who takes sentencing recommendations from another sole individual, the district attorney).

2) That same judge, can then SUSPEND the 2 year sentence, and place the individual to, say, 6 months probation. If he or she doesn't violate the probation... no jail time. Free to go on with whatever, as long as the aforementioned child support is kept current.

Now, here's the big FAIL #2: The individual, even tho no violent crime was committed, and no jail time served, and no other arrests incurred (past or present)....that person was still convicted of a felony. He or she cannot purchase or own a firearm; cannot vote; cannot hold public office (per the ATF code AND many States laws)!

3) Here's another scenario I read about (and could not believe). Say you rent a Ryder or U-Haul truck, to move locally (not even crossing state lines). You spend a few hours loading the truck, and on the way to your new place.... you all stop at Denny's for a bite to eat. When you come out, the truck and all your belongings inside the truck, have been stolen. You call 911 and report it.... cops come and take a report. You notify the leasing dealer and report it. You are a legal insured driver with no restrictions. You contact your insurance company and make them aware of the theft of both the truck and your property inside it..... and they make a report.

Three days later, police recover the truck in a Walmart parking lot. Your lock on the tail has been cut and your belongings are gone. The truck's battery, stereo, and other items are gone, and there is major damage to the front fender of the truck. Once the truck is returned to the dealer.... in SOME states, the truck leasing company can legally charge you with THEFT BY FRAUD.... even tho you had no part in the damage or theft involving the truck and items! And again, in some states, at the sole discretion of the D.A. and the judge.... you can be charged and sentenced to a felony.

There are other examples I could cite, but I think you get the idea.

4) Per the ATF code, the only 2 ways for a convicted felon to have their right to own a firearm re-instated is; a) Have the court or governor of their state expunge their record and purge the conviction from the records; or, b) apply to the ATF for an exemption from the felon rule by jumping thru a zillion hoops to show that you are a productive member of society (with a job), have no violent crime convictions (misdemeanor or otherwise), have no mental health issues (OR RECORD), have no oustanding wants or warrants, don't owe back taxes, have never been CHARGED (let alone convicted) as a sex offender, etc, etc, etc.

They nor local LE will do any of this for you. It is upon you to compile all the records, data, etc...or lack thereof.... and present same with your application.

So now, and for some time.... I have the same take on it as arthrimus, whom I quoted.

 

[Tydeeh22]

aside from personal friends. id generally like to see the pink paper. the check has been done on it, and gives me (the seller) more satisfaction from making the sale. so is it a background check? not really, but yes.

 

[GREEN607]

I VOTED YES BECAUSE I FEEL THAT ANYONE THAT WANTS TO CARRY A GUN AROUND SHOULD BE A SAINE PERSON NOT SOME PSYCHOPATH THAT LIKES TO KILL PEOPLE JUST FOR FUN. PEOPLE WHO VOTED NO HAVENT HAD SOMEONE IMPORTANT TO THEM IN THEIR FAMILY KILLED BY SOMEONE WHO NEVER GOT A GUN PERMIT.

Sorry, but you are missing the obvious.

Two things, really.

1. Criminal types don't normally acquire their guns from retail locations or even from lawful private citizens. They steal them, or buy them from someone who stole them (in most cases, 9 out of 10, according to law enforcement).

2. Mentally unstable people are not 'revealed' thru background checks, under any current system, would not likely be 'discovered' as unstable thru any proposed legislation, and could also steal them.... just as gang-bangers do.

Case in point: A woman who was perfectly law-abiding and legal to own handguns, went out and purchased two of them, and enjoyed shooting them at the range. She likely had to pass a background check, as she bought them from a local retail gun shop. She was of no threat to anyone. She stored her handguns in a small locking safe in her home.

One day, her son who lived at home with her, stole the safe key and took the guns w/o her knowledge. He shot them a few times to test his skill at shooting... and the very next morning, he shot and killed his mother in her home. He then went to a school, and shot and killed 26 people in the school. That was at Sandy Hook Elementary in Conneticutt.

The background check done, for the LEGAL purchase of those two guns, didn't prevent the killing. Did it?

Your post and your stance on this..... is clearly based on emotion, not on logic. And that's exactly what Obama wants in this country.

Fellow gun owners: Just say "NO!"

 

[IndyDave1776]

I VOTED YES BECAUSE I FEEL THAT ANYONE THAT WANTS TO CARRY A GUN AROUND SHOULD BE A SAINE PERSON NOT SOME PSYCHOPATH THAT LIKES TO KILL PEOPLE JUST FOR FUN. PEOPLE WHO VOTED NO HAVENT HAD SOMEONE IMPORTANT TO THEM IN THEIR FAMILY KILLED BY SOMEONE WHO NEVER GOT A GUN PERMIT.

All the verbiage in all caps in the universe doesn't change that fact that this is an emotional response converted into a completely useless 'solution'. Since you apparently did not get the memo, criminal, by definition, are people who disregard the law and in committing crime are doing something that is already illegal. Making it 'more illegal' won't change that, nor will it generate any useful results. If you are really drawn to the path of the police state, there are several nice places in the world you may consider making your home. North Korea tops the list, but China, Vietnam, Venezuela, and Cuba also do well in state control of residents. Who knows? You may fit right in.

 

[mike45]

no for me

If we had a list of all people that were not qualified to own a firearm. (Should be easy enough to put violent criminals, felons, mentally unstable....in a data base)

The background check would be to see if your name is on the list. If not then your good to buy. The problem arises with, who is in charge of the list?

 

[IndyDave1776]

If we had a list of all people that were not qualified to own a firearm. (Should be easy enough to put violent criminals, felons, mentally unstable....in a data base)

The background check would be to see if your name is on the list. If not then your good to buy. The problem arises with, who is in charge of the list?

More troublesome, how do you keep your list from growing to take in imperfections which are not on the list now? When will it take in all misdemeanors? Infractions? Anyone ever known to have had a bad day put on the list? You will be amazed at how perfect (or politically connected) you will have to be to exercise what is supposed to be a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT not to be infringed.

 

[LP1]

Most, if not all of our rights have been subject to interpretation and limitation in some form or another. Here are some quick examples:

1st Amendment (speech, assembly, religion) - lots of things you can't say (even on this freedom-loving forum), need a permit to hold a parade, and what about those "free speech" zones when a politician comes to town?
2nd - obviously a lot of interpretation and limitation over the years.
3rd (quartering of troops) - not really a current issue, but what do you think would happen if it was?
4th (search and seizure) - Patriot act and TSA, anyone?
5th (due process, eminent domain) - frequently tested and interpreted.
6th (trial by jury, right to counsel) - ditto. Some jurisdictions no longer pay for indigent counsel.
8th (cruel and unusual punishment) - death penalty debates.
10th (state's rights) - tying federal funds to specific actions taken by states such as BAC limits; health care.

Interpretation and limitation of rights didn't just start recently, it will apply to 2A just like everything else, and it won't end tomorrow. 2A isn't being singled out for presecution, it's just the flavor of the week.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Most, if not all of our rights have been subject to interpretation and limitation in some form or another. Here are some quick examples:

1st Amendment (speech, assembly, religion) - lots of things you can't say (even on this freedom-loving forum), need a permit to hold a parade, and what about those "free speech" zones when a politician comes to town?
2nd - obviously a lot of interpretation and limitation over the years.
3rd (quartering of troops) - not really a current issue, but what do you think would happen if it was?
4th (search and seizure) - Patriot act and TSA, anyone?
5th (due process, eminent domain) - frequently tested and interpreted.
6th (trial by jury, right to counsel) - ditto. Some jurisdictions no longer pay for indigent counsel.
8th (cruel and unusual punishment) - death penalty debates.
10th (state's rights) - tying federal funds to specific actions taken by states such as BAC limits; health care.

Interpretation and limitation of rights didn't just start recently, it will apply to 2A just like everything else, and it won't end tomorrow. 2A isn't being singled out for presecution, it's just the flavor of the week.

Oh, I understand. We have had a serious problem with the Constitution being ignored, therefore we roll over and give up. Which side are you on?

 

[Fordtough25]

Voted No, but only because there wasn't a "HELL NO" option.

Same here. We should be able to use the methods we use now to measure wether a person is legal and safe.