Universal Background Check and Universal Gun Registration-Breitbart

[zukiphile]

Indeed, Spats. You wouldn't believe the lobbying I had to do to get a BB gun as a lad.

Originally Posted by USNRet93

BUT my point with Lanza, is that a lot of mass murderers these days have 2 things in common..passing a legit BGC, and documented mental illness/social media posts that talk of killing people with a gun. All I'm saying, with an eye towards the 4th Amendment, is a 'red flag' that 'might' include a visit to said person/family..it 'might' prevent some of these, is all.

That's the problem with that standard. There isn't any sort of principled limit to it, and once you've let loose the standard, the absence of the limiting principle makes it the rationale for prohibition.

Lanza's family had arms. Making every transfer a matter of record with a government agent or licensee would allow confiscation of arms from any household in which there was some matter of public concern, like a case of the mondays or an ill considered media post. That might prevent some of these. Or it might not, in which case the UBC standard of the day will be portrayed as too lax. The logic of the standard would support increasing the number of red flags that might have prevented some of these.

If one isn't permitted to have his 2d Am. rights if he has used his 1st. Am rights, or his 4th Am. are trimmed because that might have prevented some of these, civil liberties suffer.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

Indeed, Spats. You wouldn't believe the lobbying I had to do to get a BB gun as a lad.



That's the problem with that standard. There isn't any sort of principled limit to it, and once you've let loose the standard, the absence of the limiting principle makes it the rationale for prohibition.

Lanza's family had arms. Making every transfer a matter of record with a government agent or licensee would allow confiscation of arms from any household in which there was some matter of public concern, like a case of the mondays or an ill considered media post. That might prevent some of these. Or it might not, in which case the UBC standard of the day will be portrayed as too lax. The logic of the standard would support increasing the number of red flags that might have prevented some of these.

If one isn't permitted to have his 2d Am. rights if he has used his 1st. Am rights, or his 4th Am. are trimmed because that might have prevented some of these, civil liberties suffer.

Due process I think is the operative term..Nothing as simple as 'like a case of the mondays or an ill considered media post'..his and others media posts were somewhat more troubling than 'ill considered'(Cruz)...

If one isn't permitted to have his 2d Am. rights if he has used his 1st. Am rights, or his 4th Am. are trimmed because that might have prevented some of these, civil liberties suffer.

ALL civil liberties have restrictions, have been 'trimmed', as they should be in certain instances(yelling 'fire' in a theater)..since the Constitution is a 'living' document, not necessarily etched in stone.

There has to be a middle ground considering what is found in these 'monday morning' investigations. Cruz, Lanza, Roof, Dear....others..

No, prohibition is not what I'm advocating...Nor am I advocating Fed Gov't registration.
BUT this exists now, yes?

Making every transfer a matter of record with a government agent or licensee

BUT I'm talking about how 'thin' the BGC is now and no UBC would prevent some of these. I'm saying if the person is 'obviously' a potential threat to himself or others, after 'Due Process'..maybe a closer look..I recognize the possibility of abuse.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

Due process I think is the operative term..Nothing as simple as 'like a case of the mondays or an ill considered media post'..his and others media posts were somewhat more troubling than 'ill considered'(Cruz)...

Due process means an adjudication. We already have that process.

Originally Posted by USNRet93

ALL civil liberties have restrictions, have been 'trimmed', as they should be in certain instances(yelling 'fire' in a theater)..since the Constitution is a 'living' document, not necessarily etched in stone.

It's bit silly to refer to a written document as "living", don't you think? Is the text of the document any more plastic for not having been originally etched into stone?

One is permitted to yell fire in a theater, and no case has ever held otherwise. The suggestions you make aren't accommodations of one right to give sufficient to a different right. Your suggestions lead to a person forfeiting one right if he exercises the other. The point of the BOR isn't that the government may grant exercise of a right so long as everyone still believes that's prudent, but that individuals retain these rights against the government.

Originally Posted by USNRet93

There has to be a middle ground considering what is found in these 'monday morning' investigations. Cruz, Lanza, Roof, Dear....others..

No, prohibition is not what I'm advocating...Nor am I advocating Fed Gov't registration.
BUT this exists now, yes?

No, it doesn't so long as non-licensees are permitted to conduct private transfers.

I understand that you are no arguing for prohibition generally, only against people whose writing you find alarming or whose frame of mind gives you pause. It's fair to ask whether such people really need access to media or can be trusted to pilot heavy vehicles, isn't it?

I am unpacking the natural political implication of your offered reasoning. There isn't a middle ground between having a right and not having it. Lots of people aren't exactly right, or write terribly stupid and malevolent things. Your remedy is to speak in response.

Do you recall John duPont? He was an exceedly odd person and ultimately shot an olympic wrestler. It would have saved that wrestler's life if we disarmed exceedly odd people, but we don't constrict civil liberties to eliminate risk. The rationale that weighs risk against liberty kills the liberty because some risk is always present.

Originally Posted by USNRet93

BUT I'm talking about how 'thin' the BGC is now and no UBC would prevent some of these. I'm saying if the person is 'obviously' a potential threat to himself or others, after 'Due Process'..maybe a closer look..I recognize the possibility of abuse.

Everyone is a potential threat, so that isn't the issue. If you believe that it is obvious that a person is an immediate threat, you should employ existing legal process. The problem comes when obviousness is measured only in hindsight. In the absence of a valid model for predicting violent crime with substantial certainty, an appeal for pre-emptive disarmament is an appeal to knowledge we do not have.

[USNRet93]

If you believe that it is obvious that a person is an immediate threat, you should employ existing legal process.

I guess I'm saying, this isn't happening. Don't think there is any formal structure for this either. There seems to be no connection between a person who states more than once on a public media forum that he/she wants to kill lots of people with a gun, then legally buys one with mayhem as a result.

Then many state the failures committed along the way from start to finish. When investigating aircraft accidents(did a few in the USN)..you always sought the beginning, followed the steps to the end and tried to unravel where that 'chain' could have been disrupted or changed, that would have changed the outcome. Doesn't 'seem' like that is happening, investigation to 'fix' any problems or issues..seems it degrades into a shouting match, loud voices and predictions of dire outcomes(taking everybody's gun or everybody should have a gun)...

BTW-

One is permitted to yell fire in a theater, and no case has ever held otherwise

So if a court can prove that you incite imminent lawlessness by falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, it can convict you. If you incite an unlawful riot, your speech is "brigaded" with illegal action, and you will have broken the law.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

BTW-

1. That isn't a quote from the Schenk decision.
2. The Schenk decision doesn't prohibit shouting fire in a theater.
3. The article you quote doesn't suggest that Schenk prohibits shouting fire in a crowded theater.
4. If you read your quote you will see that the incitement to riot is the illicit act, not the speech itself.

Schenk is a case in which a fellow was handing out leaflets, the act for which he was prosecuted. The business about yelling fire is part of the reasoning, not the holding.

The court's reasoning in Schenk is poor. Inciting a stampede by shouting firing in a crowded place isn't speech in any conventional sense; it's the equivalent of pulling a fire alarm. No one hears a fire alarm and wonders about the validity of the ideas expressed by it and whether they merit a response.

Originally Posted by USNRet93

I guess I'm saying, this isn't happening. Don't think there is any formal structure for this either.

Menacing is already a crime. One can already obtain an ex parte restraining order to prospectively keep someone from doing irreparable harm.

The structure exists. It isn't used as you have suggested because the obviousness you assert is rare.

Originally Posted by USNRet93

There seems to be no connection between a person who states more than once on a public media forum that he/she wants to kill lots of people with a gun, then legally buys one with mayhem as a result.

Do the journalists who wished that Nick Sandmann and people like him would just die need to have their liberties re-examined? How often does a hothead threaten to kill people with no ensuing violence, let alone death? Unless the answer is "infrequently" or "less often than not", your proposal is to have the state abridge civil liberties without a rational basis.

This isn't a shouting match. Predictions of the likely result of your proposals isn't a defect in the conversation; it's a positive feature.

[44 AMP]

The predictable reaction to an observation that school killers are passing background checks is that the universal background check standards need to be higher.

And just what standards would those be???

Seriously, I'd like to know. Does anyone here know what the current background check "standards" are? I don't. And, does it particularly matter what they are???

I hear people suggesting "enhanced" background checks (for "assault weapons", for example), wanting to make that the law, but NONE of them can tell me what an enhanced background check is, or consists of. the closest any of them manage is to say an "enhanced" check is deeper and more thorough than the standard one. Sounds logical, people accept it, and move on.

But it is MEANINGLESS. An empty phrase used by people who do not know what they are talking about, and just saying something that sounds sensible.

Lets be clear on a few points, a background check doesn't prevent ANYTHING. A background check doesn't stop anything. Doesn't prevent firearm purchase in any way, shape, or form. It is a records check. Period. ALL it does is look at information, and show it (or a summary) to the person running the check. It is not the check that denies or approves purchase, it is what the check looks at that does it, not the check itself. It is the record of the ACTS done by the person being checked that determine if they recognized as prohibited persons, or not.

That decision is made using the information provided by the check, the check itself does nothing but provide information (and only if it is there to be found). When we say "passed or failed the background check" we aren't speaking precisely. Good enough for casual conversation, not good enough for making laws or court rulings.

People seem to think that, if bad guys are getting past the background checks, then the solution is to make the checks "tougher" or "more in depth", and that will find things that would prohibit those bad guys who currently get passed.. That is a fantasy.

The "standards" for prohibited person classification are set in LAW. Not in regulatory requirements that can be changed "in house". It, literally, requires an act of Congress to change the LAW.

So, short of new laws or changes to existing laws, requiring the full usual legislative process, there is no "making the standards tougher". You CAN make the background check more in depth, but at that point, it changes from being a check to being an investigation.

Investigations take time, and cost serious money. Forget cheap and easy. Forget "instant". They can cost thousands of dollars in man hours, and in the end it still comes down to the same thing, did the person being investigated ever do anything that meets the existing legal standards? IF they didn't, you've just wasted all that enhanced effort. If they did, what do you think the odds are that there is already a record of the disqualifying offense, one that shows up with the "standard" check?

Ok, maybe you find a handful of cases where there is something there, and it didn't get reported so the regular check sees it. That's great. Now, how much time (and money) does that take?? DO we force people to wait, days, weeks? Months??? for that investigation to be completed? DO we make ALL firearms transfers match (or exceed???) the investigative requirements of NFA firearms?? Spend thousands of dollars investigating each and every gun transfer??

Not happening, that I can see. Nor should it. It's a satisfying emotional idea that we ought to be able to take the guns away, or even lock up people who write/say "disturbing" things. But is it really such a good idea to give (or allow) that kind of power to elected officials, (let alone un-elected ones)?

All well and good, as long as the people deciding what is "disturbing" make decisions that you agree with. What happens when they decide YOU are the one with "disturbing" ideas??? hmm?

"Hi!, we're from the government, and we're here to help you. You've made some social media posts that have upset some people, so we're going to take your guns, and lock you up for a while, just as a precaution, you understand. Oh, and after we let you out, you get to wear this yellow star, or pink triangle, or Scarlett Letter...for the rest of your natural life...just as a precaution, you understand..."


Think that's too far fetched? Think that could never happen in America? Read history....and read it without the blinders of a political agenda. Amazing what you can find...

[kmw1954]

A For What it's Worth,
My brother is a Dr. of Psychology and we have had the conversation many times over the past few years, since before the Colorado theater shooting, and have come to agreement that "given the correct set of circumstances each and every human on this planet is capable of killing another human". Self preservation or the saving of a Loved One is a strong instinct. So the question really becomes how do we write a law that will cover this action? How do we know at what point someone will kill. How to write a law that defines Human Nature.

[zukiphile]

KMW, indeed. The potential to injure another is part of our rational moral order.

Originally Posted by 44AMP

And just what standards would those be???

Seriously, I'd like to know. Does anyone here know what the current background check "standards" are? I don't. And, does it particularly matter what they are???

In this context, I believe people are referring to the check of the system by which FFL transfers are conducted. Accordingly, when someone refers to an enhanced check, one needs to ask him how he would enhance that.

A VA finding that you need help with your checkbook?
A doc's report that you've ever thought about suicide?
An ex-spouse's anxiety that you could be violent?
A disorderly conduct conviction from an argument with a neighbor?
A domestic violence allegation?
Insufficient likes on Facebook?

Last night, the fellow across the intersection from me had his high beams on. I flashed mine seven times before he turned them down. Shouldn't I be flagged to prohibit any transfers until I've been checked out for murderous intent?

[sigarms228]

Originally Posted by zukiphile:

Do you recall John duPont? He was an exceedly odd person and ultimately shot an olympic wrestler. It would have saved that wrestler's life if we disarmed exceedly odd people, but we don't constrict civil liberties to eliminate risk. The rationale that weighs risk against liberty kills the liberty because some risk is always present.

That's a powerful statement zukiphile that sums it up nicely. Thanks.

[sigarms228]

Is this really what some of you want by expanding UBC? This seems to be where we are headed. What other Constitutional Right requires this level or scrutiny by government officials to exercise?

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2019...duced-in-house

House Bill 888, sponsored by Representative Daniel Didech (D-59), would require Firearm Owner’s Identification Card (FOID) applicants to provide a list of their social media accounts to the Department of State Police (DPS) and for DPS to conduct a search of the accounts.

http://ilga.gov/legislation/billstat...&SessionID=108

Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that the Department of State Police shall conduct a search of the purchasers' social media accounts available to the public to determine if there is any information that would disqualify the person from obtaining or require revocation of a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card. Provides that each applicant for a Firearm Owner's Identification Card shall furnish to the Department of State Police a list of every social media account.

[44 AMP]

Provides that the Department of State Police shall conduct a search of the purchasers' social media accounts available to the public to determine if there is any information that would disqualify the person from obtaining or require revocation of a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card.

I have to wonder what information could that be??? Are disqualifying convictions NOT reported to the govt, but are reported on social media???

Is there something other than a conviction that will disqualify a person from getting an FOID card or have their issued card revoked? What could that be??

Provides that each applicant for a Firearm Owner's Identification Card shall furnish to the Department of State Police a list of every social media account.

Ok, what are they going to do if my list of social media accounts is N/A or "none"??? Will they deny me for that? Or accuse me of not complying with the law, and therefore deny my card request because of it???


Does TFL count as social media? and need to be reported???

What's next? Demanding a list of books I checked out from the library? oh, the horror!!

[kmw1954]

So where does all this leave me? I do not have a CCW and do not feel the need for one. I do not have a Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat or any other account and don't want one. Then the other day I went to log into my bank and in the log-in for security they now ask for a Cell phone number, well I don't have one of those either. Are they going to deny me from logging into my bank account?

[sigarms228]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I have to wonder what information could that be??? Are disqualifying convictions NOT reported to the govt, but are reported on social media???

Is there something other than a conviction that will disqualify a person from getting an FOID card or have their issued card revoked? What could that be??



Ok, what are they going to do if my list of social media accounts is N/A or "none"??? Will they deny me for that? Or accuse me of not complying with the law, and therefore deny my card request because of it???


Does TFL count as social media? and need to be reported???

What's next? Demanding a list of books I checked out from the library? oh, the horror!!

Hopefully this will never come to be but it is a bit disturbing it even has been proposed. If it does become law it will be interesting to see how the Illinois State Police handle it. Some people have very extensive social media history that could take a whole lot of hours to review and I doubt they have the needed manpower. They would probably have to drastically raise the FOID fee to get more manpower. Then becomes the question how to determine who exactly is qualified to do such searches and what is done about it.

According to what the FOID background search looks for the only thing I can think of that would be of interest would be evidence that one might be "deemed mentally defective" which is a big can of worms and would probably include involvement of court orders, deeper investigation, and other qualified professional personnel though I am not sure offhand in Illinois how that is legally done but I bet it costs a lot of money. What is worrisome is that a large percentage of the population believes one is mentally defective just because they might wear a red hat with a certain four letter word on it. So it might be difficult to do a fair unbiased review on one's social media history and be ripe for abuse of one's civil rights.

I am no way an expert in what and what not is social media but I believe membership to various forums where one posts under a pseudonym would qualify but I might be wrong.

What could be next is that in New York they have talked about requiring to be able to search one's internet history as part of a background check to purchase a firearm. I think everyone in and running for public office should volunteer first.

[Tom Servo]

Ok, what are they going to do if my list of social media accounts is N/A or "none"?

Probably denied for "insufficient information." If this were to pass, I could see many gun owners leaving platforms like Facebook and Twitter.

Part of the problem (and the people pushing for these regulations know it) is that people will often post things on impulse they shouldn't make public. We see daily stories about politicians and celebrities doing it. Heck, I once decided not to hire someone based on something troubling I found on her Facebook feed.

Then we have the question of what kind of speech disqualifies someone and who sets the criteria. There are some very real 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendment concerns here.

We're going to have more incidents like Vegas and Parkland so long as gun-control advocates and politicians push gun bans rather than addressing the underlying factors. The media is doing a very good job of demonizing us. A few more of those, and we may very well see support for something like this.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

We're going to have more incidents like Vegas and Parkland so long as gun-control advocates and politicians push gun bans rather than addressing the underlying factors.

Not trying to argue but you mentioned Vegas shooter..have there been any 'underlying factors' discovered with that guy?

[44 AMP]

you mentioned Vegas shooter..have there been any 'underlying factors' discovered with that guy?

I anyone has come up with anything relating to why he did it, they haven't released it to the media. Which leads me to believe they haven't found squat. IF he had a social media "presence" and there was anything on it that might be remotely related to the shooting, no one has found it...

They experts really don't know what to make of the Vegas shooter. He was so far outside the usual profile they are stumped.

Wealthy middle aged white male with no criminal history, no history of violence, not under medical treatment for mental issues or on medication for such (as far as we know), who carried out an obviously pre-planned attack, and left no note, no journal, no manifesto, no string of rants on social media, and apparently told no one else what he planned to do.

He literally left investigators with nothing indicating his motive. All these are way outside the profile of the rest of the mass killers we have seen in recent decades. We still discuss mental state and motive of other mass killers, looking at where the system "failed them", what might have been done different to prevent the killings, but for the Vegas shooter, the silence is deafening. There is simply nothing to base speculation on.

My personal theory is demonic possession . Scoff if you want, there is as much evidence supporting demonic possession as any other reason, to date (meaning none).

No background check stopped a guy worth a couple million dollars, who owned a airplane or two, from obtaining weapons. No "red flag" law would have stopped a guy who didn't give any "warning signs".

Think about that...

[kmw1954]

This same thinking can be applied to all of them.

My brother the Dr. and I started the conversation when James Holmes went off the tracks. These people are broken, damaged. Yet they can walk amongst us completely undetected and unmolested until they break out of the closet shell. Sadly the next one is already out there and we have no idea where he is or when he'll strike.

As can plainly be seen here the Background checks didn't do anything to detect or stop these people. They were hidden in plain view.

In the case of Holmes he should have been detected and stopped all but for the HIPPA Laws. Though I also support those HIPPA laws as no one needs to be in my medical records.

[44 AMP]

In the case of Holmes he should have been detected and stopped all but for the HIPPA Laws. Though I also support those HIPPA laws as no one needs to be in my medical records.

This is something I've always wondered about, people who are ok with the govt (or business?) looking into every aspect of their lives without much complaint, but fiercely guarding the privacy of their medical records.

Perhaps, its because I don't have anything in my medical history I'm concerned or worried about. One operation (tonsils at age 6) two broken fingers in Jr Highschool, and a bit of dental work in the 50+ years since.

What could you have in your medical history that needs such protection that it concerns you? If it's something that disqualifies you for a certain job, you have to tell your prospective employer about it, anyway. If you don't they could fire you anyway, for not telling them...


If you have a condition that makes you a risk to yourself or others, DR's are required to do certain things, including reporting it to the proper authorities. I understand a desire for privacy, and fully support that, what I don't get is people who have a fit about their medical records privacy and don't about the rest of their lives...


I heard that they changed the laws so that dangerous folks wouldn't be protected by HIPPA, but if Holmes wasn't "outed" due to HIPPA laws, then they haven't changed them enough...


Patrick Purdy, who's attack on a Stockton schoolyard back in 86 is generally regarded as the first of our current "cycle" of mass shootings WAS protected by medical privacy laws at the time.

Purdy bought two handguns in California, going through the then existing 15 day waiting period and background check, TWICE. He was, also, getting a monthly payment from Social Security because he was "mentally disabled" and unable to work. At that time, SSI could NOT, by law, inform the state of California about his disability. Had CA known about his disability, he would not have been approved to purchase a firearm. Purdy moved to Oregon, briefly, where he bought the AK-47 variant he used to murder those kids and a teacher at Stockton, after he returned to CA. He killed himself with one of the pistols he bought in CA.

One of the many results of that shooting, besides the beginning of the "assault weapon" frenzy still going on, was that we were promised that the situation with privacy laws would be examined, and the laws changed so it didn't happen again. If Holmes was protected by HIPPA laws, that's just another broken promise in a long, long string of broken promises.

[Tom Servo]

have there been any 'underlying factors' discovered with that guy?

No, because for some reason, the FBI has released next to nothing about this guy. In a time when we know the name of the shop where every mass shooter got his gun the same day as the incident, this is very odd. I'm to understand the weapons still haven't been turned over to the ATF for inspection.

people who are ok with the govt (or business?) looking into every aspect of their lives without much complaint, but fiercely guarding the privacy of their medical records.

They're OK with it as long as it applies to those awful gun owners. If that sort of thing were to affect them, there'd be gnashing of teeth and protests about privacy rights. It's like the hypocrisy over no-fly lists. By all means, let's use them to limit gun rights, but if I get denied a flight, it's the mother of all civil rights abuses.

[kmw1954]

44AMP, There are many things that I believe no one needs access to. Bank records, Tax records, Medical records, Phone records. As I've stated I also do not have a Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook or any of those accounts because of their TOU Agreements. They are Data Minors. My posts here and other public forums are just that Public and I do not expect privacy. I do not post anything on these forums that I wouldn't want anyone else to see. Including harsh or derogatory comments. If an 8 yo. cannot read it then it doesn't belong on a public forum.

I will say also that in the last few years of my working life my medical records and conditions have cost me jobs. Just as my age has. It is almost impossible to prove age discrimination.

Twenty years ago after my first bypass surgery 6 months after returning to work I was suddenly and unexpectedly terminated from a job I had been at for 17 years. The reason was arbitrary and obscure. But I know part or most of it was because of the surgery. While I was off looking for work at that time I got a line on a job with General Mills in Milwaukee. After testing and 4 interviews I was offered a job pending a physical. At the physical the Dr. came in and immediately seen the bright red scar running all the way from my chest it inside my pants. So of course he asked what it was and I honestly told him. It was then his opinion that I was unfit to perform the job. Even though it had been over 6 months and I had full releases from all my Drs. to work w/o restrictions. Funny how I worked for 20 more years in the same industry after that.

Then we can fast forward to the last 2 years I worked. 3 jobs within 2 years all with questionable terminations or at least dishonest terminations. I know the last two jobs the terminations were due to my deteriorating health and I knew it and if they would have come to me and honestly stated that I would have respected them for it but they didn't. As it turned out the day I was terminated from my last job when I arrived home that day in the mail was my Letter from the SSA stating my disability had been approved. So I would have had to quite working anyways.

So age and disability discrimination does exist. And I can attest to it first hand.

Yes it does work both ways, Some gun owners believe the HIPPA Laws to restrictive and hid too much yet they complain about a background check to determine if someone is a felon. Same as there are those that won't even post a general location as to where they are at in their ID. They feel it's too revealing.

[BBarn]

When background checks result in something like 90% false positives, and prosecution of true positives is similarly dismal, there is no reason why background checks should be further expanded or supported in any way. Background checks have been in place long enough to demonstrate their effectiveness, and have failed miserably. Unless, of course, their purpose is to simply deny firearm transfers that might be unlawful.

If background checks were judged on their effectiveness, they would have received failing marks long ago. But effectiveness is not a requirement for our laws.

[5whiskey]

And then there are the cases where the very government power promoted by anti-2A advocates knowingly let's guns out on the street, knowingly in the hands of criminals even, for the sake of an investigation (cough... ahem "Fast & Furious"... cough).

No, because for some reason, the FBI has released next to nothing about this guy. In a time when we know the name of the shop where every mass shooter got his gun the same day as the incident, this is very odd. I'm to understand the weapons still haven't been turned over to the ATF for inspection.

I suspect it MIGHT have something to do with the first part of my post. I do not know, but were I a gambling man I would make a small wager on it if we could be assured we would know for sure at some point in the future. The FBI has had a bad run over the past few years (Boston Bombers, Pulse Nightclub Shooter, all of the political crap, etc.), if there was any kind of pending investigation involving Paddock that they were running it would be very bad press for them indeed if that were to come out.

[TomNJVA]

Originally Posted by BBarn

When background checks result in something like 90% false positives

Can you please cite some support for this?

[BBarn]

Here's a couple.

https://gunowners.org/fs08112016/

https://americanhandgunner.com/disco...ound-checks-if

[TomNJVA]

Thanks. It appears to me like the two articles are quoting the same unnamed source. They are saying that 95% of denials are wrong, fingering innocent people as being prohibited. Could be, but seems a bit extreme to me.