Should Gun Owners Have to Pass a Background Check to Purchase a Gun from a Retailer?

[IndyGunner]

So nobody who voted "Yes" has the guts to stand up and say they did?

Typical.

Josh

I accidentally pressed yes LOL, didn't read the question very well apparently. Took me this long to realize it.

 

[ol' trucker]

So nobody who voted "Yes" has the guts to stand up and say they did?

Typical.

Josh

I guess Dredd hasn't seen it yet.

 

[mrjarrell]

I guess Dredd hasn't seen it yet.

He may have seen it, but he won't be posting. Ever.

 

[stangman35]

So when did the law change that your LTCH isnt good enough to buy a gun,I just recently got my lifetime .Last time I had a carry license was about 20 years ago.Havent bought from a dealer recently so what kind of crap do you have to go through now?

Oh and I voted NO

 

[sbcman]

So when did the law change that your LTCH isnt good enough to buy a gun,I just recently got my lifetime .Last time I had a carry license was about 20 years ago.Havent bought from a dealer recently so what kind of crap do you have to go through now?

Oh and I voted NO

What you have to do is fill out a form and the dealer reviews it. They then make a call, I'm assuming to the ATF or some type agency, and get told yes or no to proceed with the purchase/transfer. The store clerk will then make some cute remark like "barely passed this time" or "it was close", etc.

I'm not sure when the laws changed. But, I was at Whittaker's today and more than once I heard the clerks say, "we need driver's license and carry card, if you have it." Everytime I heard it I thought, "that would be nice."

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I find it hard to believe that there could be 44 people on this forum who think we need ANY level of government-regulated gun control. Honestly,now, 44 people?????

 

[theweakerbrother]

They're probably on Uncle Sugar's payroll. You know, job security and all.

 

[sherwoody_77]

What is wrong with having background checks to stop criminals from buying handguns at stores? If they were no background check, then it would make a little easier for criminals to get guns. Yes I know they can get them on the streets cheeper, but there are always the dumb ones that would get it at the store. If you have a clean record and obey the laws, what it the big deal of going through a background check?

 

[XtremeVel]

What is wrong with having background checks to stop criminals from buying handguns at stores? If they were no background check, then it would make a little easier for criminals to get guns. Yes I know they can get them on the streets cheeper, but there are always the dumb ones that would get it at the store. If you have a clean record and obey the laws, what it the big deal of going through a background check?

Because a background check is WRONG ! Same as requiring a person to have a LTCH is WRONG. Instead of infringing on my rights, they need to start keeping the violent offenders locked up !

 

[joshennis84]

I voted yes and stand by it, face it, this isn't 1900. I understand that it's a supposed infringement, but is the government keeping law abiding citizens from owning guns? No, they aren't to an extent, I hate how they keep trying to talk about banning this or that, but that's all it is is talk. They can't, nor do I ever vote that way. Look, if it makes it a little harder for criminals and is for the greater good it is nothing but an inconvenience. This is coming from someone who gets delayed every time I buy a new gun. Every time. I don't know why, but I always get the ok the next day. Makes it a pain in the rear if I'm not buying local, that's for sure. Yes, I have a lifetime carry permit too, which makes even more ridiculous, but it's for the greater good. Why do we have speed limits? For the greater good. Why do we have laws about being under the influence and driving? For the greater good. Also that crack about drinking as a teenager, no it doesn't stop anybody, but it does make it more difficult for teens to drink. It's for the greater good. Slander if you want, I don't care, but I don't have a problem with it. I will if they ever think they can come take them away.

 

[MTC]

...face it, this isn't 1900.

No, it isn't. We're so much more progressive now.

I understand that it's a supposed infringement, but is the government keeping law abiding citizens from owning guns? No, they aren't to an extent, I hate how they keep trying to talk about banning this or that, but that's all it is is talk. They can't, nor do I ever vote that way. Look, if it makes it a little harder for criminals and is for the greater good it is nothing but an inconvenience. This is coming from someone who gets delayed every time I buy a new gun. Every time. I don't know why, but I always get the ok the next day. Makes it a pain in the rear if I'm not buying local, that's for sure. Yes, I have a lifetime carry permit too, which makes even more ridiculous, but it's for the greater good. Why do we have speed limits? For the greater good. Why do we have laws about being under the influence and driving? For the greater good. Also that crack about drinking as a teenager, no it doesn't stop anybody, but it does make it more difficult for teens to drink. It's for the greater good. Slander if you want, I don't care, but I don't have a problem with it. I will if they ever think they can come take them away.

Da, comrade. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

"They" don't have to come and take anything away. The right they already took from you was not even missed.

 

[theweakerbrother]

For the greater good, eh comrade?

 

[ATM]

I can't keep these threads straight.

If someone is so prone to victimizing others, why are they even allowed to be out walking around with the free people?

If they are no longer deemed a threat and released, how could a simple gun make them go bad again?

Silly I tell ya.

 

[squirrelhntr]

We don't have background checks to exercise the 1st Amendment.

good point ! didn't read to many posts. i voted no, let the retailer evaluate the buyer. yes, why don't they give back up checks, and **** tests to all tax paid employees, federal, state, local, all of em. also the media ????? weed out the finks with double standards.......

 

[bertenshaw]

We don't have background checks to exercise the 1st Amendment.

I think this wins the best reply award.

 

[JayPea]

Alcohol and Tobacco kill and harm far more people year in and year out than firearms, yet all you need is an ID to buy those items. That should kill the 'greater good' argument unless background checks for those are being proposed too. But I'm not a constitutional lawyer nor did I stay at a holiday inn express last night, but I agree that 'shall not infringe' was pretty clear.

 

[jgressley2003]

I voted yes. I realize criminals are going to get their hands on them no matter what. However it would be nice to at least make them at least have to work for it and not be allowed to walk into a gun shop, big r, etc. and get one with no strings attached. I'm not opposed against having to have a permit to carry either. I believe though that if you have a permit to carry there should be no restrictions where you can carry it.

 

[Hoosierdood]

I voted "yes". As it is, criminals still get their hands on firearms. They obviously get them through straw purchases and other illegal means. Now, it has been pointed out by several that by requiring background checks, it only affects the law abiding since the violent fellons aren't going into gun shops every day to buy a new Tec-9 or Glock Foty. But immagine for a second what would happen if the requirement were to be taken away. What would prevent a violent criminal from walking into a Walmart and buying a shotgun. What would stop a gang member from walking into a gun shop and buying a new pistol? I know this is all hypothetical, but i see more problems by removing the requirement than there are with the requirement enforced.

Also, I don't see background checks as an infringement, i see it as a method of accountability.

 

[ATM]

...criminals still get their hands on firearms.

...But immagine for a second what would happen if the requirement were to be taken away.

Nothing.

What would prevent a violent criminal from walking into a Walmart and buying a shotgun.

Nothing.

What would stop a gang member from walking into a gun shop and buying a new pistol?

Nothing.

...i see more problems by removing the requirement than there are with the requirement enforced.

What are these new problems you speak of?

Every criminal or gang member that wants a gun can already get one.
Why would I care where they buy it?

If they aren't supposed to have one, punish them for possessing one.

Then again, if they are no longer deemed a threat to society and have been released into the population, why shouldn't they have a gun?

If they're still too dangerous to have a gun, they're too dangerous to be free.

Doesn't anyone get that? I see a lot of yes votes right after they admit it makes no difference.

 

[MTC]

If any of the approximately 40%(+ or -) of INGO respondents who voted yes in this and the other similar poll hurry, you might still catch Helmke in Ft. Wayne to show your support for gun control.
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...t/132441-paul_helmke_in_ft_wayne_tonight.html
Background checks on all gun buyers has always been one of the main agenda items of the Brady campaign.