INGO'ers REQUIRE background checks??

[fishbass62]

YES!

I voted yes, but they have to do it right. First, if a state does a complete background check to issue a LTCH and requires a gun safety course (current LTCH's grandfathered and military/police exempt), then that LTCH is good anywhere in the US and is all that is needed with picture ID to purchase a gun. Second, LTCH numbers are put into a national database with expiration dates. Lifetimes would have a date of 99/99/9999. Third, any seller of a gun would have to have a LTCH and use their number to access the database to verify the LTCH of the purchaser and that they also checked valid picture ID. Fourth, FFL's would still need to keep records of sales. Fifth, anyone deem incompetant or convcted of a felon would be required to surrender their LTCH and it would be removed from the database. Sixth, the database should be accessible from any computer, tablet, smartphone.

In effect, you purchase a lifetime LTCH, keep your nose clean, you only need one background check.

I'm sure that there is a hold or two here, but it would only take a few of us to iron them out in a short time.

 

[fyver]

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

 

[ATM]

I'm really confused by all the no's. why would you not want everyone to be checked out before they buy a firearm.

So you start by admitting you are confused and asking questions... that's a good start.

...That is just a narrow minded outlook.

Then you manage to cap it off with a smugness toward all those who know exactly why they answered NO.

Poor finish.

NO.

 

[ATM]

I voted yes, but they have to do it right...

You followed this up with proposals for several new restrictions and mandates that don't even exist now. No thanks.

I'd iron that right off the table.

 

[redlegrod]

No---Shall Not Be Infringed!

 

[DanVoils]

I voted yes. I have nothing to hide. Any information about me possibly owning a gun is already out there with my LTCH application. If "they" are going to come get me "they' already have a reason. Allegedly we all want to keep guns out of the hands of miscreants yet many on here don't want to be bothered or tracked. Sounds hypocritical to me.

 

[the1kidd03]

I couldn't even give in to a "yes" on principle of it when majority of guns in crime are stolen or obtained illegally, it just PROVES that this suggestion will do NOTHING to curb violence. So, there's no way I'd forfeit the freedom just to make someone feel good about doing nothing.

 

[Bennettjh]

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

Me too. The grabbers will just keep chipping away at our rights. Then when the next shooting happens they'll have to make more requirements and hoops we have to jump through.

 

[foszoe]

I voted other

If the background check does not require any info about the gun involved ie make, model, action, caliber, serial #,
If the check is free ie I can log into the NCIS and validate a name from my computer/phone
If the check does not require any information from the seller.

So if I can type in "fos zoe" and the computer comes back "legally able to own a firearm". If the name is common, it gives me a list of names and addresses which I can match to the buyer.

then I don't see any issue with it. There is no info at all about the gun, the seller, and a whole list of probables for the buyer

Of course I reserve the right to change my mind after I read all 11 pages of posts

 

[ATM]

...Allegedly we all want to keep guns out of the hands of miscreants yet many on here don't want to be bothered or tracked. Sounds hypocritical to me.

Just cut the hands off all the miscreants and leave the rest of us alone.

My solutions work.

 

[42769vette]

WOW, I never bothered clicking on this thread because I knew the results would be near 100% voting for NO BACKGROUND CHECKS. I guess I was wrong, right now only 80% feel the way I do

 

[223 Gunner]

What is a "proper person"? If they're not in jail, they should be allowed to own a firearm. It's a Right guaranteed by the Constitution. If they're too dangerous to own a firearm, why'd you let them out of prison? Either they've paid their debt or they haven't.

I'll admit I have not taken the time to read the entire thread.
Just because they're out of jail doesn't mean that they now have a different personality.

 

[CarmelHP]

I truly don't believe that the "majority of gun owners" out there agree with this, yet I KEEP seeing it posted everywhere with no verification to the claim. I want to see it justified SOMEWHERE. In social media, it's easy for a "gun grabber" to say "I'm a gun owner and I want more checks".

I am disappointed by the number of "YES" answers, even if a minority. It goes to show the lack of understanding of the issue, even by gun owners. Background checks do nothing other than hassle gun buyers, and make tracking buyers easier, which is the TRUE PURPOSE. It's all about controlling people, not guns, and making sure you know that you need permission from THEM to buy guns.

 

[CarmelHP]

The point is that it's unreasonable to expect that there won't be challenges, and that "all or nothing" brinksmanship is a dangerous strategy. The "all or nothing" proponents tend to get marginalized, and when you draw a line in the sand, there's a huge risk of ending up with nothing.

I'd settle for at least nothing. Accepting BG checks is a net loss, a surrender with nothing in return, a net loss. It's LESS than nothing.

 

[42769vette]

I'll admit I have not taken the time to read the entire thread.
Just because they're out of jail doesn't mean that they now have a different personality.

No but it means they have paid their debt, and via the constitution have the right to protect themselves and family from people who dont care if they are or are not allowed to posess a firarm. I highly doubt anyone in history has said

"I was going to go commit a murder, but im not allowed to have a firearm". The people who made a mistake and landed in jail, paid their debt and are now normal members of society deserve the right to defend themselves and families from people who dont care about the law just like you and I.

 

[GREEN607]

I am disappointed by the number of "YES" answers, even if a minority. It goes to show the lack of understanding of the issue, even by gun owners. Background checks do nothing other than hassle gun buyers, and make tracking buyers easier, which is the TRUE PURPOSE. It's all about controlling people, not guns, and making sure you know that you need permission from THEM to buy guns.

You are absolutely right about tracking buyers easier being the .gov's true purpose. It is an indirect avenue to future confiscation.

But, on top of that (or I guess I should say, in addition to that), I will say (having read EVERY POST in this thread)....I am honestly surprised that no one has mentioned this: To compile such a data base as would be required for EVERY sale, inclucing private ones.... and have it then available to ALL sellers..... we open ourselves up to another danger beyond the infringement of our 2A rights. Anyone think about professional 'HACKERS'? They can also be thieves, and could learn with ease, the info needed to lay their hands on YOUR guns via burglaries.

NO THANKS!

 

[RobbyMaQ]

Sorry guys. I voted yes. Just my opinion, and I respect everyone who said no (and understand why you feel the way you do).
I feel that should I sell a gun to an individual, I can make a good attempt at making sure they should own a firearm (asking for pink & dl). But I am no expert, and fake documentation or something else could slip by. If an ffl is required, then I know I made the best effort I could to sell to someone legally.
As for felons paying their dues... well, yeah I agree to an extent. But after 15 yrs they can petition to expunge, and own firearms again. Sorry, but they should thought about consequences beforehand.
I'm not trying to convince anyone to think my way here.. just saying how I feel about it.

 

[HICKMAN]

I feel that should I sell a gun to an individual, I can make a good attempt at making sure they should own a firearm (asking for pink & dl). But I am no expert, and fake documentation or something else could slip by. If an ffl is required, then I know I made the best effort I could to sell to someone legally.

So... if it becomes required and you have to pay $50 for that service?

 

[digitalrebel80]

I would like to see them just open nics to everyone so you have the option to check for yourself

 

[GunnerDan]

I voted yes, and the reason that I have is because to get a background check to purchase a firearm will stop some of the criminals that are able to get weapons right now. Now I will be told that this is nothing more that firearms registrations, I say no, you get a NCIC check to purchase a firearm from a private individual, no 4472, no registering, no nothing, only a clear NCIC check to get the weapon.

Gunner