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

[Hoosierdood]

What are these new problems you speak of?

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

I see an increased availability of firearms to those violent criminals. Unfortunately, your assertion that fellons shouldnt be on the streets if they are too dangerous to own a gun doesn't work here. We all know about the overcrowding in our prisons. Criminals are released all the time before their sentance is up. How many repeat offenders do we have in our system? Not trying to pick a fight here, just saying there are those who have proven that they are not willing to abide by our laws, and they should not be allowed to own a firearm.

Then there are others who are fellons, who have been rehabilitated, and are not a danger to society. I don't think that just being a fellon should disqualify one from owning a firearm, but repeat offenders - YES.

As for punishing them for having one, how are the police to know that the person in possession of a firearm is not supposed to have one until AFTER they commit a crime. I know I'm treading on dangerous ground here in the 2A Room, but i have heard so many times someone assert their 4th ammendment rights, indicating that they should not have to show ID or LTCH unless they have committed a crime. While I don't disagree, there has to be some way for the LEO's to enforce the law.

Who knows, maybe removing the background checks would do absolutely nothing in regards to the availability of firearms to those who would misuse them. We can only speculate at this point. The OP asked a question, and I answered it honestly. In my opinion, it would open the door to way too many abuses. We would hope that all FFL's would be honest and ethical, but we also wish all LEO's were honest and ethical. And we all know that isn't always the case.

So like I said... its a method of accountability. Just my . Take it for what it's worth.

 

[ATM]

I see an increased availability of firearms to those violent criminals.

I'm missing that. These aren't collectors. If they want a gun they can already get one easy enough.

Unfortunately, your assertion that fellons shouldnt be on the streets if they are too dangerous to own a gun doesn't work here.

Surely you can admit that it points to the absolute root of the problem.
My purpose in stating it is to contrast the actual problem with the ineffective "solution" that has no real impact. The problem deserves a real solution, not a continuation of this "feels good but does nothing" stuff.

Then there are others who are fellons, who have been rehabilitated, and are not a danger to society. I don't think that just being a fellon should disqualify one from owning a firearm, but repeat offenders - YES.

Dead repeat offenders won't have any more access to guns.
There's a real solution. 2nd strike - lights out.

As for punishing them for having one, how are the police to know that the person in possession of a firearm is not supposed to have one until AFTER they commit a crime.

By the exact same methods they already do. No change there.

...Just my . Take it for what it's worth.

Good enough.

 

[stangman35]

When everyone is armed,we are all on the same level.The bad guys will always have guns,they like the fact that most people arn't armed and they are betting on that.

Lets just say you just got your carry license u go to the gun shop,they run a background check and dont get an answer,come back tomorrow.Your like no problem im clean must just be a busy day and i have to wait.

Meanwhile bad guy trades some crack for a street gun,why would he go to a store anyway they dont take crack.

Long story short your at the cash machine that eve BG comes up asks for your money shows you his gun in his waistband,you hand it over wishing you had that gun you werent able to take home today because you are waiting for permission.

Bad guy turns and walks away but thinks you might be the one that gets him sent to jail and turns around and shoots you dead.

Next day while your family is making arrangement's for your funeral the call comes in that your good to go,come pic up your gun

 

[CarmelHP]

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.

The Brady bunch should be buying ad space on here for recruiting. They already have a pool of Quislings waiting to do their bidding for them.

 

[Richard Whitefeather]

A form 4473 isn't going to stop a criminal. It's not meant too. It's designed to be an invasive and punitive action to the law abiding. It's end purpose is to secure the information into a database needed by a totalitarian regime to enforce all out warfare on Constitutional freedoms, by seizing all weapons at your domicile.

A criminal probably wouldn't go to this length, but could, in fact, use a fake ID, fake name, address, SSN, and birth date, without the dealer knowing it. The supposed reason for IBG checks. The BATFE wouldn't figure that out until they copied the 4473 info on one of their visits and checked it out. In which case the dealer would be the one in big trouble, not the criminal. He or she would be "unknown" unless there was a camera taking pictures of the gun purchases in the store at the time and the criminal could be identified by their photo.

NO to all gun control in what ever form it takes!

___________
Whitefeather

 

[Blackhawk2001]

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.

The Constitution doesn't make any differentiation between "law abiding" citizens and otherwise. It says "....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It doesn't add any qualifiers.

More harm has been done to this country through legislation "for the greater good" (or any other variation on the theme of " we know what's best for you peasants") than any other sort of activity extant in the country.

If it ever gets to the point that "they ever think they can come take them away", it will be far too late to matter to you. You will be disarmed or you will be dead or imprisoned. Don't worry, though, you'll probably want to cooperate with "Big Brother", so you'll see the wisdom of turning over your means of self-defense against your government because "it's for the greater good"!

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I see an increased availability of firearms to those violent criminals. Unfortunately, your assertion that fellons shouldnt be on the streets if they are too dangerous to own a gun doesn't work here. We all know about the overcrowding in our prisons. Criminals are released all the time before their sentance is up. How many repeat offenders do we have in our system? Not trying to pick a fight here, just saying there are those who have proven that they are not willing to abide by our laws, and they should not be allowed to own a firearm.

Then there are others who are fellons, who have been rehabilitated, and are not a danger to society. I don't think that just being a fellon should disqualify one from owning a firearm, but repeat offenders - YES.

As for punishing them for having one, how are the police to know that the person in possession of a firearm is not supposed to have one until AFTER they commit a crime. I know I'm treading on dangerous ground here in the 2A Room, but i have heard so many times someone assert their 4th ammendment rights, indicating that they should not have to show ID or LTCH unless they have committed a crime. While I don't disagree, there has to be some way for the LEO's to enforce the law.

Who knows, maybe removing the background checks would do absolutely nothing in regards to the availability of firearms to those who would misuse them. We can only speculate at this point. The OP asked a question, and I answered it honestly. In my opinion, it would open the door to way too many abuses. We would hope that all FFL's would be honest and ethical, but we also wish all LEO's were honest and ethical. And we all know that isn't always the case.

So like I said... its a method of accountability. Just my . Take it for what it's worth.

Here's an equitable solution: allow everyone not an inmate of a jail or prison to carry whatever he/she wishes. If you catch someone in the commission of a felony - kill him. He will never commit another crime, with a gun or without.

 

[ol' trucker]

Here's an equitable solution: allow everyone not an inmate of a jail or prison to carry whatever he/she wishes. If you catch someone in the commission of a felony - kill him. He will never commit another crime, with a gun or without.

That makes too much sense. just like the Arizona shooting. obviously everyone knows who did the shooting. they tackled him and held on to him until the police arrived. so in instances like that. it is cut and dry who did the shooting. not 1 argument about it. they should have put him up against the wall,and shot him straight in the head on National television. I understand that we have rights. and there are going to be some that think it is crazy talk. but when it is 100% of who commited the crime with a gun. it would be nice if they were taken out. but no..we drag all these cases thru the courts. spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on them. then we the people get to spend another million dollars over their lifetime in prison. see that on the evening news for awhile,it would cut down on alot of these thugs out there commiting crimes. not all,but a vast majority.

 

[Dentoro]

When politicians and bankers start having to pass a lie detector test about bribs and kickbacks.

 

[joshennis84]

The Constitution doesn't make any differentiation between "law abiding" citizens and otherwise. It says "....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It doesn't add any qualifiers.

More harm has been done to this country through legislation "for the greater good" (or any other variation on the theme of " we know what's best for you peasants") than any other sort of activity extant in the country.

If it ever gets to the point that "they ever think they can come take them away", it will be far too late to matter to you. You will be disarmed or you will be dead or imprisoned. Don't worry, though, you'll probably want to cooperate with "Big Brother", so you'll see the wisdom of turning over your means of self-defense against your government because "it's for the greater good"!

Just so you know, I never once would release my firearms over, and I don't agree with everything the government does, but sometimes there are laws present for a reason. You are also quoting a document that was written in 1787. I firmly agree with the right to keep and bear arms as a law abiding American citizen. Who are you to tell me that I don't hold firm to our forefathers and our American history? I just flat out don't see a problem with making it a little harder for convicted felons to get a gun. Sorry if I hurt somebody's feelings but I don't always agree with the right to freedom of speech either. I don't have kids yet, but I'm not looking forward to when I do and drive up on a gay pride parade either. As a an American and Christian I see lots of problems with our laws, but having a system in place to make it more difficult for a felon to get a gun is not one of them. What is so bad about filling out a piece of paper?

 

[PatriotPride]

Just so you know, I never once would release my firearms over, and I don't agree with everything the government does, but sometimes there are laws present for a reason. You are also quoting a document that was written in 1787. I firmly agree with the right to keep and bear arms as a law abiding American citizen. Who are you to tell me that I don't hold firm to our forefathers and our American history? I just flat out don't see a problem with making it a little harder for convicted felons to get a gun. Sorry if I hurt somebody's feelings but I don't always agree with the right to freedom of speech either. I don't have kids yet, but I'm not looking forward to when I do and drive up on a gay pride parade either. As a an American and Christian I see lots of problems with our laws, but having a system in place to make it more difficult for a felon to get a gun is not one of them. What is so bad about filling out a piece of paper?

Wrong. So the Constitution was written some time ago---what's your point? You don't happen to think it's relevant?

You and others have an attitude of compromise. It's EASIER and makes you feel better to have infringements in place. I am thankful that our forefathers and many here do not have your attitude regarding "filling out a piece of paper". What was so bad about paying unfair taxes to the British? The examples go on.

Bottom line: ANY infringement on our rights, ESPECIALLY our affirmed right to keep and bear arms, is WRONG. It's completely unacceptable. It may even provide you with a false sense of security. To condone gun control, as many here are so happily engaging in, is nothing more than a slap in the face of freedom.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Just so you know, I never once would release my firearms over, and I don't agree with everything the government does, but sometimes there are laws present for a reason. You are also quoting a document that was written in 1787. I firmly agree with the right to keep and bear arms as a law abiding American citizen. Who are you to tell me that I don't hold firm to our forefathers and our American history? I just flat out don't see a problem with making it a little harder for convicted felons to get a gun. Sorry if I hurt somebody's feelings but I don't always agree with the right to freedom of speech either. I don't have kids yet, but I'm not looking forward to when I do and drive up on a gay pride parade either. As a an American and Christian I see lots of problems with our laws, but having a system in place to make it more difficult for a felon to get a gun is not one of them. What is so bad about filling out a piece of paper?

Look at what you wrote (in red), compare the first sentence to the last sentence, and then ask yourself why we should take the rest of your comment seriously. I suggest you study up on Early American History before you make such comments. What you are condoning by your statements is FEDERAL GOVERNMENT infringement on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. Go back and read your Constitution again. When you give the government the power to decide if you may possess the means of self-defense, you have given away your freedom. All the government has to do is deny you permission, for whatever reason, and you are rendered weaponless and defenseless. And what makes you believe that administrative impediments to firearms ownership has ANY effect on the criminal element?

 

[E5RANGER375]

Just so you know, I never once would release my firearms over, and I don't agree with everything the government does, but sometimes there are laws present for a reason. You are also quoting a document that was written in 1787. I firmly agree with the right to keep and bear arms as a law abiding American citizen. Who are you to tell me that I don't hold firm to our forefathers and our American history? I just flat out don't see a problem with making it a little harder for convicted felons to get a gun. Sorry if I hurt somebody's feelings but I don't always agree with the right to freedom of speech either. I don't have kids yet, but I'm not looking forward to when I do and drive up on a gay pride parade either. As a an American and Christian I see lots of problems with our laws, but having a system in place to make it more difficult for a felon to get a gun is not one of them. What is so bad about filling out a piece of paper?

I know a book that was written thousands of years ago, but by your quote above if I asked you to disgard its words due to being out of touch by age, would you? I didnt think so.
Bet you never thought of that did you?
The arguement that the founding documents are too old to be in touch with todays society is an old one and is totaly BS! a couple hundred years old isnt that old. We are a young country, and either we stick to what we were founded on, or we fail.

 

[joshennis84]

I know a book that was written thousands of years ago, but by your quote above if I asked you to disgard its words due to being out of touch by age, would you? I didnt think so.
Bet you never thought of that did you?
The arguement that the founding documents are too old to be in touch with todays society is an old one and is totaly BS! a couple hundred years old isnt that old. We are a young country, and either we stick to what we were founded on, or we fail.

I see your meaning and haven't thought of it that way, but I still don't think it's right for convicted felons to have guns, and that is why I don't see what is wrong with having to fill out a piece of paper. The government is not keeping law abiding citizens from owning guns.

 

[stangman35]

Everytime you fill out that piece of paper the gov puts another slash mark next to your name,so when they think that we no longer need our guns they are gonna come looking for them.And just like the war on drugs they will rip your house apart to find them.
But the felons will still have their guns,you can bet on that.They will get them one way or another if they want one.So what is the difference if they buy it at BIG R or the street corner.

 

[PatriotPride]

The government is not keeping law abiding citizens from owning guns.

Yes, they are. They're trying their damndest. Look at the gun control measures in place today. They've made it practically impossible to purchase certain firearms, and they're just getting started.

 

[Deprime]

I voted NO. In my opinion the 2nd amendment is cut and dry. Any obstacle, whether just an inconvenience or not, I view as an infringement of my rights.

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.

Why is it that our society continually introduces new laws and or legislation to attempt to fix problems that are created by failure to properly enforce existing laws? The solution will not be found by, for lack of a better word, harassing citizens when they go to purchase a firearm. We need tougher punishments for criminals. I realize that overcrowding in prisons is a problem. All of the useless and unneeded spending by our government (which is an entirely different discussion) could be transfered into the penal system to keep felons behind bars where they belong. I agree with ATM that if criminals can't be trusted with a gun then they can't be trusted on our streets.

You are also quoting a document that was written in 1787.

I don't always agree with the right to freedom of speech either.

That's just the kind of "progressive" thinking that has gotten us into our current mess.


Just my .

 

[E5RANGER375]

I see your meaning and haven't thought of it that way, but I still don't think it's right for convicted felons to have guns, and that is why I don't see what is wrong with having to fill out a piece of paper. The government is not keeping law abiding citizens from owning guns.

I use to believe the same way, even less than a year ago. I was TOTALY against a fellon having the right to ever own a gun again. But then I realized my thinking was flawed because they had served and repaid for their wrongs, at least where the law is concerned. Do we ever welcome these citizens back into society, or will we always treat them as outcast and then as the final jab, not allow them to protect themselves from the current brand of criminals on the street? Yes they did the crime, but they also did the time that we as a society chose to issue for the crime. once they are free'd they should be just like you or I. How else do we offer any incentive to keep doing good? Even your most religious or righteous people will sin, so how do you expect a person who isnt welcomed with open arms in a social or a economic (job) sense to perform? They will probly resort back to old ways and old relationships because new ones are out of the question.
We have laws on the books that says murder is wrong. armed robbery is wrong. waving your gun around in public is wrong. carrying a gun without a license is wrong (even though I dont agree with that). We all know and have proven its easy for a criminal to illegaly purchase a firearm. So why wouldnt we reward a person who ask to do it the legal way like all of us have? Do you realy think we have to wory about the convicted fellon who is telling the govt (asking them) to allow him to carry a gun? NO. We need to worry about the people who dont get their license who you never knew had one until its too late.
so I ask you to rethink your viewpoint like I once did, and maybe we can make sure we arent sending citizens out on the street to become victims or back into their old ways because we cant forgive. Remember that old book I mentioned before that you read? It says forgive right? you dont have to forget, but you do need to forgive and give people second chances. If they screw up again then nail them to the wall!

EDIT: I want to add that my feelings here DO NOT include felons out on parole. only former felons who have paid their full debt to society.

 

[Deprime]

I use to believe the same way, even less than a year ago. I was TOTALY against a fellon having the right to ever own a gun again. But then I realized my thinking was flawed because they had served and repaid for their wrongs, at least where the law is concerned. Do we ever welcome these citizens back into society, or will we always treat them as outcast and then as the final jab, not allow them to protect themselves from the current brand of criminals on the street? Yes they did the crime, but they also did the time that we as a society chose to issue for the crime. once they are free'd they should be just like you or I. How else do we offer any incentive to keep doing good? Even your most religious or righteous people will sin, so how do you expect a person who isnt welcomed with open arms in a social or a economic (job) sense to perform? They will probly resort back to old ways and old relationships because new ones are out of the question.
We have laws on the books that says murder is wrong. armed robbery is wrong. waving your gun around in public is wrong. carrying a gun without a license is wrong (even though I dont agree with that). We all know and have proven its easy for a criminal to illegaly purchase a firearm. So why wouldnt we reward a person who ask to do it the legal way like all of us have? Do you realy think we have to wory about the convicted fellon who is telling the govt (asking them) to allow him to carry a gun? NO. We need to worry about the people who dont get their license who you never knew had one until its too late.
so I ask you to rethink your viewpoint like I once did, and maybe we can make sure we arent sending citizens out on the street to become victims or back into their old ways because we cant forgive. Remember that old book I mentioned before that you read? It says forgive right? you dont have to forget, but you do need to forgive and give people second chances. If they screw up again then nail them to the wall!

You make a really good point. If they have paid their debt to society and have been released as a reformed individual ready to reintegrate into society, then yes they should have the same rights as everyone else. The right to protect ones self and their love ones is a very basic and necessary right.

I can see how denying them rights and treating them as second class citizens could force someone to resort to their old ways. I also agree with the two strikes and your out policy.

 

[dross]

I wonder if the market would address this issue if the unconstitutional restriction were dropped.

Perhaps some gun shops would only sell guns after a background check. They might gain a market edge for being responsible.

I'd have no problem with a private entity, like a gun shop requiring checks, though it woudn't solve the overall problem any more than the government requirement.