Background Checks

[SIGSHR]

How about background checks for buyers of alcohol and controlled substances. Tie it to the driver's license. A hit comes up-a DUI-no sale!
What prevents false and malicious information from being entered ? An arrest, but no conviction, charges dismissed-an acquittal. People with similar names ? As has been noted, red flag laws try to ignore due process. A mere accusation becomes the equivalent of a conviction. We had a case here in NJ, a man fighting with his ex-wife, he refused to increase the child support, she reported him as in default, next thing he knows he's Public Enemy No. 1.

[HughScot]

What on earth does alcohol or controlled substances have to do with mass shootings? Nothing. It's these type of answers that show how little gun owners care about the problem.

[44 AMP]

What on earth does alcohol or controlled substances have to do with mass shootings? Nothing. It's these type of answers that show how little gun owners care about the problem.

I think you missed the point, which I took to mean that alcohol and controlled substances are ALSO things that can cause harm and death if misused, and that if a background check is needed for guns, it should also be needed for other things that are dangerous, and we have not, and are not doing that.

I don't see how pointing out an obvious double standard shows "how little gun owners care about the problem"
and just to be clear, WHICH problem are you referring to in this statement?

Mass shootings? or proposed solutions that we believe cannot, and will not work? or something else??

[L2R]

What on earth do background checks have to do with mass shootings? Nothing. It's these type of answers that show how difficult it is to have a real discussion with those who want something done to make them feel better but does nothing to deter the next attack.

Passing more stringent background checks on guns is the equivalent of fining everyone that drives because someone drove drunk and killed someone.
And to stop making chevy's (because it was the vehicle used in a killing) will not stop drunk driving.
That is the point and how it applies to this discussion.

Guns are tools.
People make decisions and are the root cause of these killings. You can remove a tool from the shed but then they will just pick a different tool.
So stop demonizing the tools and those who use them wisely.

Meanwhile, the general public is ok with letting the government side step those pesky, old fashioned concepts which are the building blocks of our laws like:
*innocent until proven guilty,
*due process,
*a hearing to face your accuser
*protections from search and seizure without a warrant

Understanding the problem is complex. I doubt anyone totally understands it. We all agree it is horrific and we need solutions.

We just want for people to stop by-passing the constitution because A- it isn't helping and B-we know that it won't stop at the 2nd amendment.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Hugh Scot

What on earth does alcohol or controlled substances have to do with mass shootings? Nothing. It's these type of answers that show how little gun owners care about the problem.

Are we allowed to care about more than one problem?

Where people give some scrutiny to proposed laws with little prospect of actually making anything better while restricting peoples' rights, they may foresee additional problems resulting from the "solution".

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by HughScot

What on earth does alcohol or controlled substances have to do with mass shootings? Nothing. It's these type of answers that show how little gun owners care about the problem.

As 44 AMP asked and zukiphile implied: What problem?

Alcohol and/or controlled substances may or may not have anything to do with mass shootings, but are we only concerned with mass shootings? Drunk drivers kill and injure orders of magnitude more people every year than mass shooters. If "government" is concerned with saving lives, and if a logical approach is to first attack the issues that cause the most deaths and injuries, why is "government" so laser focused on GUNZ! when drugs and alcohol in conjunction with automobiles kill so many more people?

According to the NHTSA web site, drunk drivers killed 10,874 people in 2017. How many people were killed by mass shooters in 2017? My numbers show 221 people killed by mass shooters in 2017. Drunk drivers killed FIFTY times as many people as mass shooters that year ... where's the outrage about drunk driving? Where are the legislative proposals to eradicate the problem? Or aren't drunk driving deaths a problem? They are to me -- the people are just as dead.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

I knew about the VT and Sutherland Springs shooters. If I knew that the Aurora shooter should bave been prohibited, I've long since forgotten it. Can anyone explain why he should have been prohibited?

Going from memory; but there are a lot of complex issues to unpack in the examples you offered.

The Sutherland Springs shooter WAS a prohibited person. He simply wasn’t reported to the NICS system because neither state nor federal agencies are required to report that information. It may be policy; but it isn’t law.

The Aurora shooter was NOT a prohibited person. He certainly could have been but many of the people who were aware of his issues didn’t want to take that kind of dramatic step that would dramatically affect the future of a young man who might just be confused and who would eventually straighten up and fly right. Lots of people “expressed concern” but noone followed through.

The VA Tech shooter falls into a gray area. Under federal law “adjudicated as a mental defective” isn’t defined by statute. ATF has their own opinion of what constitutes “adjudicated as a mental defective” and the VA Tech shooter met those standards. However, at that time, the state of Virginia wanted to intervene early in potential problems without ruining a young person’s life, they did not intend for that particular state law to deprive the shooter of any rights, including his 2A, so they did not report the situation to NICS, even though they would have reported other types of adjudications. So the VA Tech shooter was a prohibited person based on ATF regulations; but not based on state law and with contrary federal law interpreting that conflict.

[5whiskey]

If I knew that the Aurora shooter should bave been prohibited, I've long since forgotten it.

There are 2 Aurora shooters, one in CO and one in IL. The Aurora CO theater shooting is significantly more well known, but the Aurora IL shooting was national news a few months ago. The CO shooter was not prohibited, and probably the best example of how a RFL could possibly prevent a mass shooting as the shooters psychiatrist noted that he had homicidal tendencies but he thought he was “borderline” so he did not commit him. The CO shooter was not a prohibited person. The IL shooter was recent, and he passed a background check and had a FOID card, despite a prior felony conviction in another state. His FOID card was ultimately revoked, but no one came for his firearm(s).

[Aguila Blanca]

Ah. Thank you, 5whiskey. My comment was in response to someone else who mentioned that the VA Tech, Sutherland Springs, and Aurora shooters were all prohibited people. I assumed that this was a reference to the Aurora, CO, theater shooting. Perhaps the author of the post I saw was referring to the IL shooter.

[5whiskey]

Perhaps the author of the post I saw was referring to the IL shooter.

Pretty sure they were, as I’m pretty sure I was the poster. I’m adamant about a “fix NICS” type law before any additional laws are passed. There are major incidents where the shooter was a prohibited person but passed the NICs check because a cleric somewhere didn’t enter it, or a state didn’t agree that adjudicated mentally deficient meant, well... adjudicated mentally deficient. A fix NICs law would affect law abiding citizens almost zero, and actually could stop a criminal from purchasing firearms through legit channels.

[USNRet93]

Bad guys who can’t pass a background check have no need to go through the trouble of locating private sellers;

Never said they were 'bad guys', I said they couldn't pass a BGC, for whatever reason.
And I said that 'loophole' will be closed IMHO..I didn't say I agreed with it, just an observation in this really dopey era.

If you fail a BGC, for whatever reason, and didn't lie on the 4473..no potential prosecution will result..yes?

Right now, you can travel up to Wyoming..find a gent at a local gun show, who is a private individual who rented a table..and buy a gun from w/o any BGC..NO comment on the goods or bads, just saying that is the type of sale that 'may' be made illegal in the future by the feds..
IMHO....eh?

If you try to purchase a gun and you receive a firearms transfer denial during the background check, you can appeal that denial if you do not meet any of the above criteria and you believe a mistake has been made.

Approximately, one percent of firearms transfers are denied and many times it because of mistaken identity or incorrect records at NICS. Therefore, many firearms transfer denial appeals are successful.

[Doyle]

Right now, you can travel up to Wyoming..find a gent at a local gun show, who is a private individual who rented a table..and buy a gun from w/o any BGC..NO comment on the goods or bads, just saying that is the type of sale that 'may' be made illegal in the future by the feds..
IMHO....eh?

That is ALREADY against the law. You are a resident of CO. You cannot legally travel to WY and purchase a firearm without going thru a WY FFL for a long gun or a CO FFL for a handgun.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

. . . . Right now, you can travel up to Wyoming..find a gent at a local gun show, who is a private individual who rented a table..and buy a gun from w/o any BGC..NO comment on the goods or bads, just saying that is the type of sale that 'may' be made illegal in the future by the feds..
IMHO....eh?

Unless you're a Wyoming resident, that's already illegal. You know that, right?

Originally Posted by Congress

(a) It shall be unlawful-- . . . . (3) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to transport into or receive in the State where he resides (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, the State where it maintains a place of business) any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State, except that this paragraph (A) shall not preclude any person who lawfully acquires a firearm by bequest or intestate succession in a State other than his State of residence from transporting the firearm into or receiving it in that State, if it is lawful for such person to purchase or possess such firearm in that State, (B) shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a firearm obtained in conformity with subsection (b)(3) of this section, and (C) shall not apply to the transportation of any firearm acquired in any State prior to the effective date of this chapter;


18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (West)(emphasis supplied)

[Tom Servo]

Bad guys who can’t pass a background check have no need to go through the trouble of locating private sellers; because if they go to an FFL and fail a background check, nothing will be done about it.

I can attest to that. In fact, I've done so in court. When I was in the business, I had the Blue File. It contained cheap USB drives with camera footage of denied straw purchases, copies of the relevant paperwork, and a log of calls to various law-enforcement agencies who failed to take an interest.

In fact, when Congress held their hearings on background checks after Newtown, the police commissioner from Baltimore testified in favor. A Republican Representative asked him why his city had never prosecuted any Brady Act violations on his watch, and his response was, "those are paper crimes. I don't have time to go after paper crimes." Yet he was advocating for creating more of these "paper crimes."

It's these type of answers that show how little gun owners care about the problem.

That's the kind of cheap emotional appeal that really doesn't belong in conversations about major social policy.

Let's say I advocate banning certain books from the school library as a way of reducing teen drug use. You have every right to stand up and tell me that's a ludicrous idea. It doesn't mean you don't care about teen drug use. It doesn't mean you're in the pocket of Big Pharma, and it doesn't mean that the 1st Amendment is killing our children.

That's one of the more craven and dishonest bits of chicanery gun-control advocates love to push, and it's a blatant ad hominem. I can grieve for the victims, and I can want change. Just because I don't want their definition of change doesn't mean I don't care.

[USNRet93]

No I didn’t. So I see a FS ad in WY of a private gun sale, I can’t go up there and buy it? Didn’t know that was illegal.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

No I didn’t. So I see a FS ad in WY of a private gun sale, I can’t go up there and buy it? Didn’t know that was illegal.

Every interstate transfer of a firearm must go through an FFL. The transfer of a long gun may go through an FFL in the tranferor's state of residence or the transferee's state of residence. The transfer of a handgun must go through an FFL in the transferee's state of residence. In both cases, a background check is required.

[FITASC]

What on earth does alcohol or controlled substances have to do with mass shootings? Nothing. It's these type of answers that show how little gun owners care about the problem.

Actually, most mass shooters were on controlled substances at one time or another - most were psychotropic drugs for the treatment of things like ADHD and similar.

[L2R]

There is no magic by- passing of state or federal laws because someone put up a tent.

Gun free zones and the gun show loop-holes exist only in the minds of those who repeat it or want others to believe in it.

[44 AMP]

No I didn’t. So I see a FS ad in WY of a private gun sale, I can’t go up there and buy it? Didn’t know that was illegal.

As an out of state resident, you can still go up there and buy it. What can't legally happen is you give the guy the cash and he gives you the gun and you go home with it. You must go through an FFL with all other requirements applying.

Been that way since 1968, so, its been the law for a bit over 50 years.

Actually, most mass shooters were on controlled substances at one time or another - most were psychotropic drugs for the treatment of things like ADHD and similar.

Actually, most mass shooters ate bread, or a bread product at one time or another.

Correlation is NOT causation.

It is possible that you may find evidence that prescription drugs and/or illegal controlled substances had some effect in causing a mass shooting, but you need to look at each individual case, AS an individual case.

[spacemanspiff]

The fact that I can go to a store, buy an AR with tons of ammo and be back home in 30 minutes is an issue.

You can go buy as much accelerants, matches, kerosene, lighters, knives, machetes, hammers, screwdrivers, electric drills, chainsaws, should I continue with this list? You can buy all that without any kind of background check, or mental health check, not even have to complete any form that announces your intent with any of that.

And if for example, you and your spouse had a horrible breakup and she lies about you assaulting or threatening her, (or even if you actually did do those things!), no one would come confiscate all those dangerous non-firearm objects from your possession.

So why the fuss about that AR and a ton of ammo? When a person is intent on doing harm to others, or even to themselves, do you think they are stopped merely by the lack of a firearm? No, because EVIL intent cannot be governed by legislation.

[7.62 man]

All the background checks in the world can tell what a person with a gun will do tomorrow, much less two or three years into the future.
So background checks are not worth the paper they are written on.
The most a background check can do is prevent a known criminal from buying a gun.

[FITASC]

Actually, most mass shooters ate bread, or a bread product at one time or another.

Correlation is NOT causation.

Yep, and they drive cars.

The facts are most of the white shooters were on psychotropic drugs for ADHD and similar issues AND these drugs DO have a direct correlation to the mental issues most of these mass shooters had when they committed these crimes.

Your analogy is like saying all those coal miners who suffered from black lung also ate sandwiches and their exposure to the other elements had no bearing

[doofus47]

I'm okay with integrating more databases that list people that already should be banned: people with mental health issues, criminals, etc, where those untapped databases exist already.
Creating laws that make owning, practicing with, carrying a self-defense weapon more difficult for the general citizen are silly.
After horrific events like these of the past week, everyone scrubs their brains for ways to keep this from repeating. Cutting this type of event off at the gate is a natural strategy in a world with a prophylactic mindset. And when all you have is a hammer, all problems look like a nail.

[44 AMP]

..these drugs DO have a direct correlation to the mental issues most of these mass shooters had when they committed these crimes.

Agreed there is a correlation. Disagree that a correlation is a blanket cause. How many people in the country are on those drugs and do NOT shoot anyone??

Your analogy is like saying all those coal miners who suffered from black lung also ate sandwiches and their exposure to the other elements had no bearing

Disagree. My analogy is simply an example of something that can be correlated with something else. You're reading more into it than I said.

One can correlate anything that happens on earth (or in our universe) if your standards are broad enough. Being able to correlate some things does not automatically mean one always causes the other. They might, they might not, each case needs to be looked at as an individual case.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

Every interstate transfer of a firearm must go through an FFL. The transfer of a long gun may go through an FFL in the tranferor's state of residence or the transferee's state of residence. The transfer of a handgun must go through an FFL in the transferee's state of residence. In both cases, a background check is required.

Even tho illegal, gotta wonder how often it happens..Saw a video(which I can't find) of a Colorado gent, buying an AR type from a guy who pulled it outta his trunk, 'yer not a felon right?..snicker, snicker'....$400 later, the guy walked away with it.