Background Checks, Hi Cap Mags... - Page 3

LancelotLink · November 19, 2013, 02:04 PM

One huge loophole in the whole expanded background check argument is what happens when someone fails a background check.

Adam Lanza failed a background check. Nothing was done, nor is anything done to 99+ percent of all those who fail.

And of course, Biden admits there's no desire to follow up on those who fail.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/18/bi...ground-checks/

Since background check supporters want to include more mental health issues as a disqualification, its good to look at mental health laws. A lot of people don't know that just months before Newton, there was a bill defeated that would have allowed mentally ill to be institutionalized before they harm others.

According to the ACLU, it would “infringe on patients’ privacy rights by expanding [the circle of] who can medicate individuals without their consent.”

http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2012...hool-shooting/

Remember, under the bill of rights for the mentally ill, they have a right to refuse treatment unless it is court ordered.

http://www.mhaging.org/help/bill-of-rights.html

Granted, that's for PA, but most states have something similar.

HiBC · November 19, 2013, 02:57 PM

I'm not a Veteran and I have no personal experience with this.

I have been told by a person on the inside of the VA that Veterans are encouraged to apply for a post traumatic stress benefit or disability.

As in "Here,I can get this for you"

Just sign on the line right here.

And (I could be wrong,but,as I understand) at that point your 2nd Ammendment Right is gone.

IMO,the shooting sports and Veterans who enjoy shooting is ham and eggs and good all around.

If what I have been told is true,it is an example of how this sort of feel good law can,and is ,insidiously twisted to erode the Bill of Rights and defecate on our Veterans.

BigD_in_FL · November 19, 2013, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Again, just because people run stop signs all the time, should we remove them altogether?

Funny you mention that - many towns in Europe did exactly that, removed ALL road signs, lane lines, EVERYTHING, and even put a kid's park in a traffic circle where there are ZERO markings/signs, etc.

Traffic issues dropped dramatically, so maybe instead of going in your direction, we should be going back to the way it was pre-68 and even pre-34.......

Just sayin'.........................

**Aguila Blanca** · November 19, 2013, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LancelotLink

Adam Lanza failed a background check. Nothing was done, nor is anything done to 99+ percent of all those who fail.

Adam Lanza did not fail a background check. Adam Lanza was not 21 years of age, so he was not eligible for a carry permit in Connecticut. That meant he could not walk into a store and buy a firearm on the spot, he had to wait two weeks.

He didn't want to wait two weeks. The attempted buy was just a couple of days before the shooting. If he had put down a deposit on the gun (whatever it was he was trying to buy), the two week clock would have still been ticking when he went to the school and committed the massacre. There was nothing to be "done" -- he didn't fail anything.

**Tom Servo** · November 19, 2013, 11:34 PM

Quote:

That meant he could not walk into a store and buy a firearm on the spot, he had to wait two weeks.

See? That proves that we need background checks at gun shows, because...

Man, I got nothin'.

ronl · November 20, 2013, 12:47 AM

All the points concerning the subjects initiated have been appropriately addressed. I would ask the OP to consider one point. Why is it the government constantly seeks to limit our right to own weapons under the guise of public safety when there are no statistics whatsoever out there linking gun ownership to crime rates? There are quite a few out there demonstrating that gun ownership is a deterrent to criminal activity. There are a few possible explanations:1) they are utterly ignorant of facts and operate from a knowledge base gleaned from what they are told by a solidly anti-gun media. 2) They are utterly ignorant. 3) They wish to remove weapons from our hands in order to more adequately control us. If you can think of more please do not hesitate to add them.

LancelotLink · November 20, 2013, 08:56 AM

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec...efore-20121215

He didn't fail, but he didn't pass either. Earlier reports said he failed.

Either way, there is nearly zero follow up to those who do fail.

And no passing didn't stop him either.

So how exactly would expanding background checks stop someone who didn't pass one?

southjk · November 21, 2013, 02:28 PM

Quote:

-I do not support a registry, but I do think that background checks for private sales can be accomplished without one. As a seller, I'd love the peace of mind if saying, "I ran the check-or- he showed me a clean XYZ, so my conscience is clear.
Sure, people will still find a way to cheat, con, forge, and circumvent the system, but it definitely would help knowing that I did my small part.

I agree with you, Exit_Wound. Right now, if I were of the mind to commit a crime and I needed a gun I sure wouldn't use one of mine. I would go to one of the gun shows that don't require a background check or simply buy off of armslist. If background checks were required (without a registry, naturally) and that was posted and advertised on every website, gun show and store that sells guns AND there was any easy way for us average Joe's to do it online, then I think that would be a deterrent to many people that may want to buy a gun for nefarious reasons.

I'm not naive either. I know this will not stop everyone from buying guns without a BG check but it would stop many. How many? There is no way to know. It would stop people that are not lifelong criminals, that are off their meds or people that are usually sane but have a break and decide they need a gun to prove to the world they aren't losers. Yes, I know it won't stop all of them but it would stop some and I don't think that can be denied. No, I don't have statistics/studies to back that up. It would certainly stop me. I have no idea where I would even start to go find a gun without a background check if I couldn't buy one online, privately, at a gun show or at a gun store. Would you?

maestro pistolero · November 21, 2013, 03:29 PM

Speaking to the issue of magazine limits:

1) Trained police officers routinely expend multiple standard (15 -30) round magazines subduing a single suspect. Gunfights are dynamic, messy, unpredictable events wherein a combative assailant's threat often continues after the first several rounds fired.

Since trained police officers (who presumably have better training, aim, more steeled nerves, and radio backup at their beckon call) need full or standard capacity magazines, then lesser-trained, less battle-seasoned citizens are in far greater need of the same advantage. This is particularly true in the event of multiple assailants.

2) The entire point of the second amendment is to equalize the disparity of force between the citizen and the unlawful attacker. Only if the hundreds of millions of full capacity magazines could be vaporized from the earth, unavailable to those who would use them for nefarious purposes, could a magazine limit be enforced without eviscerating the amendment of it's primary function of providing an at least equal degree of force to oppose any attack.

3) The militia clause, until and unless repealed, remains the only stated purpose for the amendment, although we know from Heller and McDonald that the core right is one of self defense. That purpose is to preserve the capability to raise a militia should a state deem it necessary. Citizens in the historical militia are required to provide arms of the kind that are in common use for traditionally lawful purposes. Those arms must be up to the task for the amendment to have it effect.

SCOTUS and several other federal courts have acknowledged an anti-tyrrany function to the amendment. The Heller court said that although the advent of modern tanks and bombers may have created a disconnect of the 2A from its militia/anti-tyranny purpose, that fact can in no way can diminish or alter their interpretation of the right. In any case, few modern wars have failed to eventually descend into door-to-door, close-quarter-battle involving primarily small arms.

If lawful citizens are not permitted to have the same capacity magazines as their government (or any criminal who would attack them) then the anti-tyranny/militia purpose, the force-equalization purpose, as well as the self-defense purpose to the amendment will have been gutted, and rendered utterly meaningless.

TimSr · November 21, 2013, 04:01 PM

Quote:

I have no idea where I would even start to go find a gun without a background check if I couldn't buy one online, privately, at a gun show or at a gun store. Would you?

Criminals generally do not BUY guns, and they sure don't pay the going rate. Most people who commit violent crimes do not have the money in their pocket to buy firearms. If they do BUY a gun, it is typically from somebody who is not the rightful owner. If I wanted to commit a crime with a gun, I would not waste my time at a store, at a gunshow, or through a lawful private sale because chances are I wouldn't have $500 to plink down. I would break into a gunowners home when I knew they were gone, and take what I could carry, and I would not call myself in for a background check.

Adam Lanza did not buy or own any guns. He murdered his mother and stole HER guns.

maestro pistolero · November 21, 2013, 04:15 PM

I would add to my post above by pointing out that while the average citizen may indeed be less likely to encounter violent criminals than a police officer, once he is actually confronted by the criminals, they are the same criminals, just as dangerous, and the tools to stop the threat (i.e. full capacity magazines) are just as essential to survival.

**Aguila Blanca** · November 21, 2013, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LanecelotLink

He didn't fail, but he didn't pass either. Earlier reports said he failed.

Either way, there is nearly zero follow up to those who do fail.

The point of your previous post was that Lanza "failed" a background check and that nobody followed up on it -- implying that a background check was run, he was found to be a prohibited person trying to buy a gun, and that law enforcement then did nothing.

In fact, the article you linked pretty much got it right:

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA Times

Sources said he entered the store “earlier in the week” in the Newtown area and inquired about buying one rifle. He was only 20 years old, and did not have a permit for firearms, and was told about a 14-day background check that would have to be done, the sources said.

“He didn’t want to wait the 14 days,” said one source, declining to be identified because the case is still under review. “So they denied him. The sale did not take place.”

Where the article is incorrect is where it said they "denied" him. In fact, there was no background check initiated and there was no denial. He was told that he would have to wait 14 days, and he didn't want to wait 14 days. No sale was entered into, and no background check was initiated. No laws were broken. It's not illegal to walk into a gun shop and ask, "Can I buy this gun?" If the answer is, "You're only 20 years old, you can buy it but you have to wait 14 days to take it home," and I thereupon decide I don't want to wait 14 days so I won't buy the gun -- that's the end of that story. There is no denial -- there is a gun shop and a customer mutually following the law.

**Tom Servo** · November 21, 2013, 10:35 PM

Quote:

I would go to one of the gun shows that don't require a background check or simply buy off of armslist.

Those are both myths. A gun purchased from Armslist has to be transferred through an FFL. I have never heard a credible allegation of a gun being sent to an individual.

As has been mentioned, gun shows make up less than 2% of crime guns. More crime guns than that start as legally-purchased guns at FFL's.

Quote:

If background checks were required (without a registry, naturally) and that was posted and advertised on every website, gun show and store that sells guns AND there was any easy way for us average Joe's to do it online, then I think that would be a deterrent to many people that may want to buy a gun for nefarious reasons.

No, it wouldn't. They will still get their guns through the existing black market. The only people affected are those who have no inclination to break the law in the first place.

As far as the government mandating and implementing an online background-check system...let's think that through.

Not to get off the subject, but has anyone looked at healthcare.gov? It's a disaster. Do we really want the same folks putting a publicly-available background-check system online? Not only would it be a mess, it would be a horrendous avenue for abuse and identity theft.

And for what? It still won't stop someone who's just going to bypass the system via straw purchase or the trunk of someone's car.

JimmyR · November 22, 2013, 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

A gun purchased from Armslist has to be transferred through an FFL. I have never heard a credible allegation of a gun being sent to an individual.

In many states, you would be wrong, Tom. In the state of Indiana (and Kentucky, and others) a private face to face transaction can take place between individuals and no FFL is needed. No record of the sale is required.

If the gun is shipped (from out of state or otherwise), then you are right, it must be shipped via an FFL.

Tinner666 · November 22, 2013, 06:44 AM

Quote:

In many states, you would be wrong, Tom. In the state of Indiana (and Kentucky, and others) a private face to face transaction can take place between individuals and no FFL is needed. No record of the sale is required.

You still have to satisfy yourself that you personally aren't commiting a crime by selling to a felon. If it's a sting, you're really cooked. Are you or any legitimate gunowner going to take the chance? You must assure yourself about the legality of the sale. ID, CCW, FOID.
It might not be the same as the call through a FFL, but it's a check and balance.
If you're offered a pristine S&W 629 for $100.00, are you going to take the risk of buying stolen property? Are you going to call PD and tell them about the firearm and serial number? I would. If the seller suddenly shied off, I'd call PD with a description. I hate thieves and won't knowling buy from one and give them a market.
The system has checks and balances and penalties for ignoring htem.

**Tom Servo** · November 22, 2013, 08:22 AM

Quote:

In many states, you would be wrong, Tom

Right you are. I was thinking about guns being shipped across state lines.

That said, I've yet to see any proof of Armslist being the haven for illegal gun purchases the antis claim.

rwilson452 · November 22, 2013, 08:58 AM

PA is another state that allows FTF transfers, but only long guns. Pistols and such require an FFL to perform the transfer. Most people I know require the buyer to present a license to carry a firearm before the transfer. a LTCF is PA's version of a CCW permit. It's not needed but assures the seller they are allowed to own a gun.

RX-79G · November 22, 2013, 11:08 PM

I was just looking at the Federal regs today, and had forgotten that you can mail a long gun to someone in the same state to transfer ownership. No FTF or FFL required.

You could do it with a handgun, too, if you could find a way of sending it.

Of course, some states have more stringent requirements, but most don't. And the guidelines state that you can't sell a gun to someone you're aware can't own it, which is quite a bit shy of putting any onus on the seller to make sure the buyer is legal.

November 19, 2013, 02:04 PM	#51
LancelotLink Member Join Date: February 27, 2013 Posts: 32	One huge loophole in the whole expanded background check argument is what happens when someone fails a background check. Adam Lanza failed a background check. Nothing was done, nor is anything done to 99+ percent of all those who fail. And of course, Biden admits there's no desire to follow up on those who fail. http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/18/bi...ground-checks/ Since background check supporters want to include more mental health issues as a disqualification, its good to look at mental health laws. A lot of people don't know that just months before Newton, there was a bill defeated that would have allowed mentally ill to be institutionalized before they harm others. According to the ACLU, it would “infringe on patients’ privacy rights by expanding [the circle of] who can medicate individuals without their consent.” http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2012...hool-shooting/ Remember, under the bill of rights for the mentally ill, they have a right to refuse treatment unless it is court ordered. http://www.mhaging.org/help/bill-of-rights.html Granted, that's for PA, but most states have something similar. __________________ Lancelot Link Secret Chimp at your service

November 20, 2013, 08:56 AM	#57
LancelotLink Member Join Date: February 27, 2013 Posts: 32	http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec...efore-20121215 He didn't fail, but he didn't pass either. Earlier reports said he failed. Either way, there is nearly zero follow up to those who do fail. And no passing didn't stop him either. So how exactly would expanding background checks stop someone who didn't pass one? __________________ Lancelot Link Secret Chimp at your service Last edited by LancelotLink; November 20, 2013 at 09:04 AM.

November 22, 2013, 08:58 AM	#67
rwilson452 Senior Member Join Date: June 10, 2004 Location: Tioga co. PA Posts: 2,647	PA is another state that allows FTF transfers, but only long guns. Pistols and such require an FFL to perform the transfer. Most people I know require the buyer to present a license to carry a firearm before the transfer. a LTCF is PA's version of a CCW permit. It's not needed but assures the seller they are allowed to own a gun. __________________ USNRET '61-'81

November 19, 2013, 02:57 PM	#52
HiBC Senior Member Join Date: November 13, 2006 Posts: 8,289	I'm not a Veteran and I have no personal experience with this. I have been told by a person on the inside of the VA that Veterans are encouraged to apply for a post traumatic stress benefit or disability. As in "Here,I can get this for you" Just sign on the line right here. And (I could be wrong,but,as I understand) at that point your 2nd Ammendment Right is gone. IMO,the shooting sports and Veterans who enjoy shooting is ham and eggs and good all around. If what I have been told is true,it is an example of how this sort of feel good law can,and is ,insidiously twisted to erode the Bill of Rights and defecate on our Veterans.

November 20, 2013, 12:47 AM	#56
ronl Senior Member Join Date: December 2, 2007 Posts: 1,100	All the points concerning the subjects initiated have been appropriately addressed. I would ask the OP to consider one point. Why is it the government constantly seeks to limit our right to own weapons under the guise of public safety when there are no statistics whatsoever out there linking gun ownership to crime rates? There are quite a few out there demonstrating that gun ownership is a deterrent to criminal activity. There are a few possible explanations:1) they are utterly ignorant of facts and operate from a knowledge base gleaned from what they are told by a solidly anti-gun media. 2) They are utterly ignorant. 3) They wish to remove weapons from our hands in order to more adequately control us. If you can think of more please do not hesitate to add them.

November 21, 2013, 03:29 PM	#59
maestro pistolero Senior Member Join Date: August 16, 2007 Posts: 2,153	Speaking to the issue of magazine limits: 1) Trained police officers routinely expend multiple standard (15 -30) round magazines subduing a single suspect. Gunfights are dynamic, messy, unpredictable events wherein a combative assailant's threat often continues after the first several rounds fired. Since trained police officers (who presumably have better training, aim, more steeled nerves, and radio backup at their beckon call) need full or standard capacity magazines, then lesser-trained, less battle-seasoned citizens are in far greater need of the same advantage. This is particularly true in the event of multiple assailants. 2) The entire point of the second amendment is to equalize the disparity of force between the citizen and the unlawful attacker. Only if the hundreds of millions of full capacity magazines could be vaporized from the earth, unavailable to those who would use them for nefarious purposes, could a magazine limit be enforced without eviscerating the amendment of it's primary function of providing an at least equal degree of force to oppose any attack. 3) The militia clause, until and unless repealed, remains the only stated purpose for the amendment, although we know from Heller and McDonald that the core right is one of self defense. That purpose is to preserve the capability to raise a militia should a state deem it necessary. Citizens in the historical militia are required to provide arms of the kind that are in common use for traditionally lawful purposes. Those arms must be up to the task for the amendment to have it effect. SCOTUS and several other federal courts have acknowledged an anti-tyrrany function to the amendment. The Heller court said that although the advent of modern tanks and bombers may have created a disconnect of the 2A from its militia/anti-tyranny purpose, that fact can in no way can diminish or alter their interpretation of the right. In any case, few modern wars have failed to eventually descend into door-to-door, close-quarter-battle involving primarily small arms. If lawful citizens are not permitted to have the same capacity magazines as their government (or any criminal who would attack them) then the anti-tyranny/militia purpose, the force-equalization purpose, as well as the self-defense purpose to the amendment will have been gutted, and rendered utterly meaningless.

November 21, 2013, 04:15 PM	#61
maestro pistolero Senior Member Join Date: August 16, 2007 Posts: 2,153	I would add to my post above by pointing out that while the average citizen may indeed be less likely to encounter violent criminals than a police officer, once he is actually confronted by the criminals, they are the same criminals, just as dangerous, and the tools to stop the threat (i.e. full capacity magazines) are just as essential to survival.

November 22, 2013, 11:08 PM	#68
RX-79G Junior member Join Date: October 27, 2013 Posts: 1,139	I was just looking at the Federal regs today, and had forgotten that you can mail a long gun to someone in the same state to transfer ownership. No FTF or FFL required. You could do it with a handgun, too, if you could find a way of sending it. Of course, some states have more stringent requirements, but most don't. And the guidelines state that you can't sell a gun to someone you're aware can't own it, which is quite a bit shy of putting any onus on the seller to make sure the buyer is legal.