The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 31, 2013, 01:48 PM   #1
jag2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 30, 2009
Location: dallas
Posts: 391
Background checks

I haven't watched all the interviews on background checks (get a little nauseated) but there is one idea that I have not seen mentioned. I have a C&R license so why couldn't the same concept be applied across the board. One of the NRA's complaints is the time and inconvenience to do background checks under all circumstances. Why couldn't anyone contemplating buying a firearm file the same way as the C&R so that when they go to a gunshow or meet someone in a parking lot they would be pre approved and be able to complete the transaction on the spot. Same concept as getting pre approved for a mortgage before you go house hunting. The time spent while the ATF is doing their background check (usually a couple of weeks) would serve as the waiting period that some states impose. Makes sense to me, what do you think?
jag2 is offline  
Old March 31, 2013, 01:50 PM   #2
Microgunner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2006
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,971
I do background checks everyday. They take about 5 minutes.
__________________
Proud NRA Patron Member
Microgunner is offline  
Old March 31, 2013, 01:53 PM   #3
Ruger480
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 23, 2013
Location: Central Iowa
Posts: 547
Nope. I am unwilling to capitulate in any way, shape or form to an idea that moves closer to infringements on my 2nd amendment rights.

Last edited by Ruger480; March 31, 2013 at 09:12 PM.
Ruger480 is online now  
Old March 31, 2013, 02:14 PM   #4
Rifleman1952
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 1, 2012
Location: Ohio
Posts: 246
Understand that background checks, as conducted by your LGS, and what Senator Fienstien intends, are vastly different concepts. Senator Fienstien wants your background check to be a means of registering all firearms by the federal government. Registration, has historically, been the first step towards confiscation.
Rifleman1952 is offline  
Old March 31, 2013, 02:21 PM   #5
Ruger480
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 23, 2013
Location: Central Iowa
Posts: 547
Quote:
Understand that background checks, as conducted by your LGS, and what Senator Fienstien intends, are vastly different concepts.
Understood. My interpretation of the OP was to consider a new form of gun legislation that is not currently in place. That is what I oppose. Read my lips "No new gun laws"
Ruger480 is online now  
Old March 31, 2013, 02:23 PM   #6
jag2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 30, 2009
Location: dallas
Posts: 391
Ruger480, how would it differ from what they are doing now, just easier for the purchaser, or are you buying everything from private dealers? That's what I do, I avoid dealers as much as possible. Think of it like you are 22 years old and you go in to buy some beer, you just show your drivers license and you're on your way. Could the politicians muck it up, sure, but then I would withdraw my support of the concept.
jag2 is offline  
Old March 31, 2013, 02:28 PM   #7
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,126
That sounds to me like making everyone get a license to exercise their 2A right.

No, thank you.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old March 31, 2013, 02:46 PM   #8
Ruger480
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 23, 2013
Location: Central Iowa
Posts: 547
Jag,
The majority of my firearm purchases are through licensed FFL dealers. I have my CWP and that works just fine.
I think Spats framed the answer to your question much better than I did.
Ruger480 is online now  
Old March 31, 2013, 03:06 PM   #9
2ndsojourn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 665
I agree with Spats. Thanks but no thanks. We already have a duplication of sorts here in NJ where you need a FOID card to purchase any firearm or ammo. Then to buy a firearm, you have to submit to another background check.
2ndsojourn is online now  
Old March 31, 2013, 03:15 PM   #10
jag2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 30, 2009
Location: dallas
Posts: 391
Fair enough, I see it as a convenience others as an intrusion. Ideally, just having the license says I am legally able to buy the firearm but there is no reporting of what I bought. (recording yes, reporting no) A data bank concerns me more than a background check. I believe I'm correct in saying that anything I buy with my C&R goes no further than the seller. He is not required to report the sale to any agency, just keep the paperwork in his file to prove it was a legal sale if anyone comes asking. Could be wrong about that, I don't know all the FFL rules.
jag2 is offline  
Old March 31, 2013, 04:20 PM   #11
JerryM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 4, 1999
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,884
I am wondering if the requirement for 100% background checks might cause a backlog, a need for more people to do them, and a high cost for the check.

I am not persuaded that the real purpose is to make transfers of firearms so expensive or difficult that it will cause many not to bother and not buy a gun. The antis do not have any motive but to do away with private ownership. This is only a small "foot in the door."

I would hate to have to do a background check to give a gun to my son or daughter due to the trouble, and I believe expense.

Jerry
__________________
Ecclesiastes 12:13 *┬ÂLet us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
14 *For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
JerryM is offline  
Old March 31, 2013, 04:46 PM   #12
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,447
I'd also like to point out that Senator Feinstein didn't author the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013, it was Senator Schumer.
JimDandy is online now  
Old March 31, 2013, 05:16 PM   #13
throttleup
Member
 
Join Date: February 12, 2011
Posts: 32
Background Checks

I have never seen the complete text of this "background check" legislation.
the devil is always in the details. Does it say that every private gun sale must go through a FFL? That's a royal pain that no one wants. What are they going to charge? Will private individuals be able to call the NICS? I can't see that ever happening. Is this just a way to expand reporting and record keeping since all private sales will now be recorded in some way. And without a data base how will they track a weapon? Now authorities have to go to the manufacturer first, then the distributor, then the dealer. He records who he sold the weapon to and keeps that record for 20 years. That is the end of the trail. If you bought the weapon and took it to another dealer to sell it to a neighbor, are you required by law to keep a record of that transaction for 20 years? Since no information on the gun is transmitted to the NCIS except Long Gun, Handgun or Other, how will any weapon be tracked unless there is a data base by weapon make, model and serial number? And that, folks is called REGISTRATION.
throttleup is offline  
Old March 31, 2013, 05:39 PM   #14
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,447
You should check it out. Every private sale must go to a NICS or LEO to run a NICS check. Any temporary transfer not at a range, or hunting area during hunting season, or riduclously useless "at home" type temporary transfers are illegal.

If you carpool with someone, and load their rifle into the trunk for them, you committed a crime.

If your dad brings over a rifle to have you install a scope for him, that's a crime, even if he stands over you the whole time.

If you are shooting on someone's farm range with them, unless they "duly incorporated it" for the express purpose of conservation or improving firearms proficiency, and you ask them to hold your rifle while you tie your shoes, bingo- crime.

The wife with a concealed carry permit who hands her gun-totin-mama purse to her LEO husband just broke the law.

There is no exemption for the supervised temporary transfer we, as owners, engage in on an almost daily basis while shooting.
JimDandy is online now  
Old March 31, 2013, 05:45 PM   #15
JWT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 3,166
In AZ they do not need to do the background check if you present a valid concealed carry permit and drivers license. You do have to complete the form.
JWT is offline  
Old March 31, 2013, 06:42 PM   #16
seeker_4
Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2013
Posts: 48
Same in NV..present CCW and DL, purchase and walk out the door, but the paperwork is still completed, just not called in to NICS. I was told once a copy went to NICS, which to me was registration since make, model and serial number was on the form but I'm not sure about that stage.
seeker_4 is offline  
Old March 31, 2013, 07:26 PM   #17
ScottRiqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
Quote:
I was told once a copy went to NICS, which to me was registration since make, model and serial number was on the form but I'm not sure about that stage.
While that information is recorded on the Form 4473, I don't think it's part of what gets sent to NICS, other than "long gun", "handgun" or "other". As it's implemented right now, the background check is still about the person and not the gun.
ScottRiqui is offline  
Old March 31, 2013, 08:16 PM   #18
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by throttleup
I have never seen the complete text of this "background check" legislation.
The proposed background check legislation is in Subtitle B starting at the bottom of page 10 of the PDF of S.649.
gc70 is offline  
Old April 1, 2013, 01:57 PM   #19
ROCK6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 165
This whole background check thing is a massive joke. I don't discount the need to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, but the absurdity of this legislation and reasoning astonishes me.

The fiasco I just went through to renew my FL concealed carry permit is a great case in point. It ended up being a red-flag from a mistaken identity charge in WA State...however NICS or even the NCIC FBI personnel couldn't see it at the federal level, but FL could see the issue in WA???

Anyways, during that whole mess, WA state does have an interesting system called WATCH; some acronym for seeing if you have any criminal charges on somebody...or in my case, myself. The printout says it's valid for a year for proof or your "innocence"

You run the full name and birth date, of course for a stupid fee. The result is a printout that matches your name and birth date to any known arrests, warrants, etc. If people truly believe the "40% of gun transactions (mostly at gun shows) don't have a criminal background check"...(which I believe was from statistics pre-NICS); why not a system like WATCH?

I really don't mind paying a few dollars to show a seller I'm "not a criminal" so as to avoid keeping records. This would be a very sound way to make private sellers more comfortable...the problem is it doesn't meet the intent of tracking sales and registration which is the ultimate goal of some politicians.

Having been the victim of somebody using my SSN on a firearms transaction (causing me to submit to another background check, fingerprints, etc. in the Voluntary Appeal File); and this recent "identity mistake" in a small town arrest (oh yeah, it occurred when I was deployed???)...I'm not a big fan of background checks that won't be simple and easy to run without costing more than a cup of coffee, good for no less than a year and private enough to run without worry. I think it's too tall of an order for a government that can't balance a budget or it has an ideological purpose behind their proposed legislations...

ROCK6
ROCK6 is offline  
Old April 1, 2013, 04:25 PM   #20
wally626
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 31, 2009
Posts: 635
Potentially the US as a whole, or on a state by state basis, could issue something equivalent to the Illinois FOID card. All private sales would require showing the card. This would keep private sales out of the records, but would have limited value to keep guns out of criminals hands as would background checks on all sales for that matter.
wally626 is offline  
Old April 1, 2013, 05:04 PM   #21
Kevin Rohrer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2010
Location: Medina, Ohio
Posts: 507
Just Say No To Limiting the 2A

Any law that infringes on any Constitutional right is a bad law. It's too bad that some aren't smart enough to realize it.
__________________
Member: Orange Gunsite Family, NRA--Life, Varmint Hunters' Assn., ARTCA, American Legion, & South Cuyahoga Sportsmen's Assn.

"Gunnery, gunnery, gunnery...all else is twaddle!" --Admiral Sir John Fisher, RN
Kevin Rohrer is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 08:04 AM   #22
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Rohrer
Any law that infringes on any Constitutional right is a bad law.
When the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, the words did express the intention of the Founding Fathers that the federal government was not to have ANY authority in certain areas because that authority was held exclusively by the states. That changed in 1868 with the ratification of the 14th Amendment and it subsequent incorporation against the states. Instead of being totally prohibited from involvement with certain rights, the federal government became the final arbitrator in the states' traditional role of resolving conflicts between rights.

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

Societies have always had to resolve the issue of limiting one person's rights to preserve another person's rights. Even though "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," our society will never tolerate a devout cannibal acting on a religious need to eat his neighbor. Some of the absolute language in the Bill of Rights was transformed into an impossibility when the 14th Amendment changed the federal government's role regarding rights.
gc70 is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 09:21 AM   #23
ATW525
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 14, 2005
Location: Concord, NH
Posts: 2,684
Quote:
I am wondering if the requirement for 100% background checks might cause a backlog, a need for more people to do them, and a high cost for the check.
I've wondered the same thing. The FBI has also stated that they are cutting NICs funding as part of the required sequestration cuts.

In New Hampshire we've already seen a limited version of this. Handguns go through the State Police, which have been severely understaffed at times and unable to handle the demand. I've seen "instant" background checks backed up for hours on numerous occasions.
ATW525 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 09:07 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 0.12109 seconds with 7 queries