The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 16, 2013, 02:02 PM   #76
musher
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 23, 2005
Posts: 426
Quote:
I have no criminal record so it will not affect me at all. I'm assuming some people here must have one as they are so against being screened.
One, most assuredly does not imply the other.
musher is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 02:08 PM   #77
Ruthless4christ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Location: CNY
Posts: 790
Quote:
The only way they can ensure compliance is if all the guns you own are registered even if registration is given a different name.
^that
Ruthless4christ is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 02:10 PM   #78
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,701
Think about the practical side of private sale background checks.

Let’s say I have a .22 rifle to sale which obviously is used. I find a co-worker who wishes to buy the gun and we agree on a price of $175. We trot down to the local gun shop to have the background check run and they charge us $40 for the service. Who pays this?

I know if sounds simply enough, but the devil is always in the details and really how many criminals are going to do this anyway.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is online now  
Old January 16, 2013, 02:11 PM   #79
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
I'll take required background checks over lower capacity magazines everyday. I have no criminal record so it will not affect me at all. I'm assuming some people here must have one as they are so against being screened. Maybe they shouldn't own guns anyway.
Or they just don't willingly submit to government intrusions into their private lives. Not to mention the practical considerations of background checks for everyone that no one in favor of them ever seems to address or account for.
sigcurious is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 02:23 PM   #80
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Apom, my job requires background checks; my previous job, as a Navy officer, required background checks. I have held security clearances suffiicient to gain access to the CIA building, had work required it.

I have had years of military firearms quals; concealed carry licenses in three states; I have attended training courses run by top tier instructors.

The government has entrusted me with thousands of lives and billions in equipment (former Ship's Weapons Coordinator, Force Over The Horizon Track Coordinator, and Tactical Action Officer aboard a NIMITZ class carrier).

I hold a current Airline Transport Pilot certificate.

I do not fear background checks (or training requirements) because I worry about passing them - I am kind of a poster boy for people who should easily meet background and training requirements in any jurisdiction in the US.

I fear background checks and training requirements because they allow a tightening of the noose on the Second Amendment; I fear background checks and training requirements because they allow a way for the political equivalent of the country club set to keep "those people" from becoming members of the right to bear arms club; I fear background checks and training requirements because they turn a right into a privilege.

Instead of positing that the only people who fear background checks are those with criminal histories, I would posit that the only people who do not fear background checks are the ones who have not thought it through.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 02:26 PM   #81
lcpiper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
+1 to MLEAK.

I also am in the same boat through Army service and now Contractor work to include work in war zones.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223
lcpiper is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 02:51 PM   #82
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLeake
I fear background checks and training requirements because they allow a tightening of the noose on the Second Amendment; I fear background checks and training requirements because they allow a way for the political equivalent of the country club set to keep "those people" from becoming members of the right to bear arms club; I fear background checks and training requirements because they turn a right into a privilege.

Instead of positing that the only people who fear background checks are those with criminal histories, I would posit that the only people who do not fear background checks are the ones who have not thought it through.
Exactly.

Saying that "The innocent have nothing to fear" leads to a very slippery slope.

I too have no problem passing the NICS background check, but I do resent it, even though I see the point of trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, etc. But the NCIS already doesn't do much good there: a criminal who really wants a gun can get one easily enough. The only thing that makes the current system tolerable for me is that the FBI is required to destroy identifying information after 24 hours, and all records after 90 days.

I'm not that troubled by the retention requirement for 4473s by FFLs, but for the government to have a permanent database including records of what guns I own -- No, thank you.

And the current requirements for destruction of records are contained in the regulations regarding the implementation of the GCA, so presumably could be changed without going through Congress. THAT bothers me...
Vanya is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 02:58 PM   #83
bikerbill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 19, 2007
Location: Lago Vista TX
Posts: 2,352
Please tell me if you disagree, but my opinion is that, in their secret meetings, the pols pushing for gun control picked a bunch of stuff Obama could do by EO, a bunch of stuff that might pass in Congress and several things that probably won't, all to demonstrate their concern for victims of such shootings ... the next time it happens, everything they REALLY want, like full registration, no semi-auto weapons period, ammo restrictions, etc, will be back on the table and that much harder to fight. Imagine the scene in Congress a few weeks from now when they take up Feinstein's travesty, for instance ... but picture another Newtown or Aurora between now and then ... even Republicans would have a hard time saying no to a new AWB and whatever else BO dreams up ... IMHO the next four years will be a nightmare and very possibly a disaster for those of us who believe in the 2A and love guns, for whatever purpose ... Hope I'm wrong ...
__________________
"If all guns were built with mechanisms that kept them from firing when held sideways, we could end gang violence." humorist Frank Fleming
bikerbill is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 03:01 PM   #84
Wyoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 1,249
Quote:
I'll take required background checks over lower capacity magazines everyday. I have no criminal record so it will not affect me at all. I'm assuming some people here must have one as they are so against being screened. Maybe they shouldn't own guns anyway.
Giving the Government the power to aprove the sale of your personal property WILL affect you! Once it has been established that the Federal Government has the power to decide if you can sell your guns, and to whom you can sell them too, it will expand that power to other personal property.

Approval of private sales of firearms is more than just a public safety issue, it is an issue of freedom and civil rights.

I don't want the government regulating the disposal of my personal property, be it my motorcycle or my guns.
__________________
Go Pokes!
Go Rams!
Wyoredman is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 03:04 PM   #85
dlb435
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2009
Posts: 654
I just finished reading the propasal. Nothing I didn't expect to see.
All guns sales (private sales) to be background checked? How are you going to enforce that? The actual lanquage is "encourage", not enforce so that one doesn't mean anything.
Calls for a ban on "assualt rifle" manufacture. No call for regisration or buy backs. Nothing to prohibite sales of weapons already on the market. The same with high cap mags. Even this would have to get through congress first. We will have to wait and see.
Glad I'm not in the mental health industry. I'll bet that's going to be a mess figuring out were privacy ends and public safety begins.
dlb435 is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 03:13 PM   #86
Trebor
Member
 
Join Date: December 19, 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 82
The hidden danger to gun owners behind Obama's executive orders

Here's my latest Detroit Gun Right Examiner column on today's gun control press conference where he decided to do it "for the children."

The hidden danger to gun owners behind Obama's executive orders

"Although the big news from President Obama’s press conference today is his call for more gun control legislation, the real immediate threat to American’s 2nd Amendment rights may lay in the executive orders he signed immediately afterwards.

In his carefully staged press conference the president surrounded himself with children he said wrote him letters about gun violence while he outlined his “wish list” for gun control legislation."
__________________
Rob Reed
NRA & SigArms Academy Certified Instructor (Pistol)
Graduate - LFI 1 & LFI 2
Providing instruction in Metro Detroit & Lansing areas.
Trebor is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 03:14 PM   #87
ROCK6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLeake
I fear background checks and training requirements because they allow a tightening of the noose on the Second Amendment; I fear background checks and training requirements because they allow a way for the political equivalent of the country club set to keep "those people" from becoming members of the right to bear arms club; I fear background checks and training requirements because they turn a right into a privilege.

Instead of positing that the only people who fear background checks are those with criminal histories, I would posit that the only people who do not fear background checks are the ones who have not thought it through.
I'm with MLeake on this and in the same boat (pun indented for MLeake) with a very high level clearance and very in-depth background checks. My only additional concern is that there are several databases used for some positions. My fear is that what databases are they going to use for background checks and to what level are they going to deny? You're hearing medical records, including reports from doctors. What about nurses, social workers, teachers, etc...the door will be opened and the screening criteria will be manipulated for whoever is in power.

It used to always be "buyers beware"; now you're seeing a shift to seller beware. Would I knowingly sell firearms to an evil-intentioned individual with a criminal record? Absolutely not! But I also doubt even a local PD background check would catch disturbing PTSD or other mental health issues hidden in their medical records.

I think the way to address private sales is to have a system in place in local PD's allowing the individual to pay a very small, nominal fee (no more than $5.00) to run a background check on themselves and present the "clean bill of health" to the seller with a date in the past 30 days or so. No records need to be kept, no addresses needed (if done in person) and the seller would have peace of mind. No need to keep the background check or at least make them only good for 60-90 days before needing another one. Plenty of LE officers will run a quick check in their database...that should be sufficient, but again, you're not linking to some massive medical database. Can't answer that one...

As MLeake mentioned, once the process becomes overly cumbersome, attrition will occur due to inconvenience. That and many sales will go underground or an explosion of a black-market...

ROCK6
ROCK6 is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 03:25 PM   #88
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Location: Mesquite Jungle Desert, West Texas, USA
Posts: 2,467
This is only gonna cause some gun owners on the fringe to become very reclusive .......
__________________
Navin R. Johnson: "He hates these cans!!!! Stay away from the cans!!!!"
rickyrick is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 03:26 PM   #89
Bart Noir
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 5, 2000
Location: Puget Sound, USA
Posts: 1,606
I think it likely that Congress will use the very recent New York state law (yesterday) as a reason to hold back getting serious about making a new law.

This is because the NY state law exists. It is lying there, just calling for the full-meal-deal through the court system. And that means Congress can wait. "Wanting to see what the latest case law will say....." That sort of thing.

I'm actually feeling relieved at what I read in Post #30. The Prez has made his political statement, Joe Bite-em can return to his real job, and we gun owners don't seem badly hurt.

Bart Noir
__________________
“There’s a rattle in my glove box,
A Federal twelve-gauge slug.” – Adam Carroll in song Porter Wagoner
Bart Noir is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 03:34 PM   #90
coachteet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 7, 2008
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 122
I don't have any real problem with any of the executive orders, and think some of them will actually help keep schools safer. Particularly the one providing incentives for the hiring of resource officers (LEO's). I don't see any of it as a "power grab" by the president. I also don't see any problem with making a NICS check available to private parties if performed by an FFL or LEO agency, no transfer information is recorded, and the process is voluntary and provided for a small fee (under $5).

There are plenty of people out there who would like to know that the person they are selling a gun to in a private sale is not a criminal.

But universal background checks mandated by the Fed? Unacceptable.
coachteet is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 03:37 PM   #91
flyguy958
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 27, 2009
Location: SC
Posts: 153
Background checks literately registers every firearm you purchase to you. This will allow a federal registry of all guns and owners. Doesn't take long to go confiscate them when you know where they are.
__________________
You can have your own opinion but you can't make up your own facts !
flyguy958 is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 03:40 PM   #92
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,384
I just wrote my Congressional representatives stating that I do not support the confirmation of a full time director for the BATFE until that bunch of lying, thieving, murdering thugs answers for Fast and Furious.

Didn't call them that of course.

In reading through these, it appears to me that the only EO that would have helped at Sandy Hook is the better preperation on behalf of First Responders and Law Enforcements for mass shooters.
__________________
NRA Life Member
"Had King Kong showed up in Texas, Frank Hamer would have taken him down with his Model 8 in .35 Remington...well, he was kind of big, so maybe his BAR"
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 03:47 PM   #93
Itchy Llama
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2012
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 13
quote:
Assault weapons??? Don't we already have restrictions and limitations on select fire weapons?

THANK YOU!!!!
__________________
It's not an Assult Rifle!
@ItchyLlama
Itchy Llama is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 03:50 PM   #94
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,190
Quote:
Background checks literately registers every firearm you purchase to you.
No they don't. The information called into NICS does not include any description of the firearm other than type (handgun/long gun/other). Furthermore, the records are destroyed within 24 hours of a completed check.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 03:58 PM   #95
flyguy958
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 27, 2009
Location: SC
Posts: 153
Tom

Is the FFL not required to keep all records of sales and transfers? If so there is a paper trail all the way from the seller to the buyer.
__________________
You can have your own opinion but you can't make up your own facts !
flyguy958 is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 04:01 PM   #96
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,842
So the information on page 3, section D (maker, serial number, etc.) of the 4473 isn't part of what's sent to the Feds during the background check?

I didn't know that. It's... somewhat... reassuring.
Vanya is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 04:05 PM   #97
Technosavant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 3,877
The "publish a letter to FFLs on how to run background checks for private sales" has been done.

A link to this letter hit my inbox this afternoon.

http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/20...ndividuals.pdf

Nothing most people didn't know, but it puts everything in one spot. It does encourage FFLs to do transfers (I'm not sure why some don't... it would make money for them, especially for people who just walk in off the street; they can charge $50 or so for just a few minutes of work) and clarifies a few regulations.
Technosavant is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 04:08 PM   #98
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
Is the FFL not required to keep all records of sales and transfers? If so there is a paper trail all the way from the seller to the buyer.
__________________
You can have your own opinion but you can't make up your own facts !
They are, but that does not make a registry. Perhaps you should heed your own signature line...Just because your opinion is that it's a registry does not in fact make it a registry. Paper trail =/= registry.
sigcurious is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 04:10 PM   #99
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by apom
I'll take required background checks over lower capacity magazines everyday. I have no criminal record so it will not affect me at all. I'm assuming some people here must have one as they are so against being screened. Maybe they shouldn't own guns anyway.
You should make sure you know what is being proposed before you agree to it.

The administration is not proposing background checks only for sales of guns, but for 'transfers' of guns - including temporary transfers of possession. This is the same type of provision that is in H.R.21 ("temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title").

Quote:
From the President's Gun Violence Plan:

Congress should pass legislation that goes beyond just closing the “gun show loophole” to require background checks for all firearm sales, with limited, common-sense exceptions for cases like certain transfers between family members and temporary transfers for hunting and sporting purposes.
gc70 is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 04:10 PM   #100
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,190
Quote:
Is the FFL not required to keep all records of sales and transfers? If so there is a paper trail all the way from the seller to the buyer.
There is, but it would be very difficult in most cases to collate into a database. Furthermore, federal law prohibits the ATF from doing so.

Quote:
A link to this letter hit my inbox this afternoon.
I just got it, too. You're right. It suggests that FFL's encourage folks to go through them rather than transferring the guns between individuals.

And that's it.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.16606 seconds with 7 queries