Why I Support Background Checks

[dogtown tom]

44 AMP

The system has already ground to a halt (or nearly so) just due to high volume of gun sales during the "panic" periods.

How many FBI NICS checks have you run?
I ask because in the fourteen years I've been an FFL I run them every day. It is exceedingly rare for the FBI NICS to grind "to a halt", in fact if the phone check has a wait the dealer can still use the online eCheck. eCheck is available 24/7/365 and the phone NICS is open seventeen hours a day every day of the year except Christmas Day. Without question, FBI NICS is the best run customer service system in the federal government.

I think it would be a good thing if anyone could call and have the check run, PROVIDED the govt was willing to spend the tax dollars to expand it and staff it ENOUGH for the anticipated increase, and then some.

First, enjoy the ability to not be required to verify the buyers background. Secondly, Oh heck no! Allowing nonlicensee sellers to run background checks with a buyers personal information is a nightmare only the liberals could dream up....."just a second sir, can you give me your full name, address, place of birth, birth date, height, weight and oh yes......your drivers license # and your social security number as well?" Holeeeee identity theft Batman.

[imp]

The OP has lost me. The system failed, and he congratulates the system.

[natman]

Originally Posted by dogtown tom

The FBI NICS does not charge for a background check. If your state does charge, its because of state law.

What makes you think "Instant" means "Instant Proceed"? The check is instant....as soon as the dealer inputs the buyers descriptive information on eCheck or via phone the FBI NICS will give the dealer a status. Right then, INSTANTLY the dealer is told a status.

Well, they aren't. FBI NICS only asks if the transaction involves a handgun/long gun/other firearm. They aren't told manufacturer, caliber, model or serial#. Kinda hard to have a registry without that.

All that may be true at the national level. Go back and re-read my post (#21) and it clearly says "None of these things are true in California."

[44 AMP]

First, enjoy the ability to not be required to verify the buyers background.

I might if I had that ability, but in my state, I am required to verify the buyers background, using an FFL dealer to do so, by state law.

[dogtown tom]

natman

All that may be true at the national level. Go back and re-read my post (#21) and it clearly says "None of these things are true in California."

I did see that in post 21...well its also true in New York City and other states with laws more restrictive than federal law.

Are you implying that you live in California? We aren't mind readers. You neglected to list your state in your profile and your posts never mentioned your state of residence.

[natman]

Originally Posted by dogtown tom

I did see that in post 21...well its also true in New York City and other states with laws more restrictive than federal law.

Are you implying that you live in California? We aren't mind readers. You neglected to list your state in your profile and your posts never mentioned your state of residence.

As a matter of fact, I do live in California. But where I happen to live has nothing to do with it, the post stands as written, none of the characteristics a good background check should have apply in California.

[44 AMP]

none of the characteristics a good background check should have apply in California.

I'd venture to say that the people running California (and who put their laws in place) have a different opinion of what constitutes a "good background check".

Always remember that the people who promote gun control don't think they are doing anything wrong. Usually just the opposite. They think they are the good guys, they are protecting us, and as long as there is some legal method available to legally own a gun, no matter how restrictive, complex, burdensome, expensive or time consuming, as long as you can still do it, then they think that they haven't violated anyone's rights.

I think they're wrong, but that's just me...

[armoredman]

...coulda sworn I had a post on this one...
Background checks are wrong, plain and simple, and could eventually fall to Bruen.

[amd6547]

When I was young, any American could order any firearm delivered right to their door…no check of any kind, other than the bank check you sent in to buy it.
They used an incident concerning a patsy named Lee Harvey Oswald to put an end to that.

[HiBC]

Why do we give the few bad guys so much power to take away the freedom of the many good guys?

How about we empower good guys and disempower bad guys?

"Because some delinquents string toilet paper all over the homes and landscaping of local Citizens,we have passed an ordnance to ban toilet paper"

Makes perfect sense. And if only one home is spared being TP'd,its worth the price!!"

Comments have been made about "Poking the bear". I've never posted a video about anything anywhere.
"Poking the bear" implies "Now you have done it!! I'm angry and you will pay!!" Its emotions. Federal Agencies should not be controlled by emotions.

Review "Transactional Analysis" . "I'm OK, You're OK. " Adult to Adult transactions versus Parent/Child transactions. Its messed up for a Federal Agency to go into "Raging Critical Parent Mode" and inflict mass punishment (You are ALL GROUNDED!!)

Its a dysfunctional reaction to losing control. There is too much energy devoted to bureaucrats maintaining the illusion of control.

Our Founders Declared Independence over being controlled by a bunch of inbred syphilitics. They wrote a Constitution to limit the power of Government to coerce, bully,and control the Adult Citizen.

If I am not "Robbing your pocket or breaking your leg" (Jefferson?) I am to be left alone.

Too much power to coerce and persecute is directed at the Peaceful Citizen who is deemed to have "Potential to do harm" That "Potential" is a product of the persecutors imagination.
"Every person who buys gasoline "Could Be " an arsonist!!" Yes,and every person with a KaBar combat knife COULD BE a nocturnal mass murderer.

Well,you COULD be. You seem suspicious, Prove you are innocent!! Oh,and Pay A FEE !! Fill out these forms so we can keep an eye on you.

Then WE (the Grown Ups) MIGHT give you (the Child) Permission.....

And thats Life in America Today.

[Jim Watson]

But they know from NICS that you did buy a gun at that place on that day.
All they have to do is hit up the dealer for a look at his forms or bound book.

It isn't a central registry on a computer server, it doesn't cover all private sales, but it is registration.

[Tom Servo]

All they have to do is hit up the dealer for a look at his forms or bound book.

They'd need a warrant to do that. They're allowed to issue a trace request, but that applies to a specific firearm, not they buyer.

[44 AMP]

As I understand it, the ATF is allowed 1 (perhaps 2?) inspections per year, anything else has to be part of a specific, official investigation, and, follow all the rules. (warrant, etc.)

"fishing expeditions" are not allowed....

[dogtown tom]

natman

As a matter of fact, I do live in California. But where I happen to live has nothing to do with it, the post stands as written, none of the characteristics a good background check should have apply in California.

What you or I may think is a characteristic of a "good background check" is irrelevant. And the same qualities of a "good background check" apply nationwide, even in California.

The background check conducted by the FBI NICS (as used by California) is a review of several databases of prohibited persons. It's not for the same purposes as background checks for security clearances or federal employment. The Brady Law required a national namecheck system for FFL's to determine whether a person can legally buy or own a firearm.

The Brady Law did not require interviews with your neighbors, present or former employers, local PD or your family MD. All of which may be part of other federal background checks.

[44 AMP]

One of our (many) problems is that certain states require more from a background check than Federal law does.

In WA the current law requires an "enhanced background check" in order to purchase a "semi automatic assault rifle".

Trouble is, though the law went into effect in 2019, the state has yet to provide any definition of what an "enhanced background check" is.

Absent clarification from the state, law enforcement is not enforcing that provision. (which I feel is entirely right, and proper).

While the law is under legal challenge, the "Catch-22" is that since law enforcement is not enforcing it, there is no test case to be ruled on. Plus the virtual shutdown of nearly everything during the "panicdemic" has slowed things even more than the usual glacial pace of our court system.

I completely agree that a background check for firearms purchase should only be a check to see if you are legally prohibited, and nothing else.

Of course, I also think tis barking stupid to run that check on someone who already legally owns a gun. Probably a good thing I don't make the laws, otherwise a bunch of people would be out of work....

[BTR]

Originally Posted by Arkady Kobach

A background check would have stopped the sale in its tracks and gotten the perp immediately locked up and facing charges of a felon attempting to purchase a firearm.
.

The part you mentioned in bold very rarely happens.

The FBI, in reviewing instant background checks for firearm purchases, detected 112,000 lie-and-try crimes in fiscal 2017 alone, and federal investigators had names and addresses on the filled-out forms. How many were prosecuted? Twelve, according to a recent Government Accountability Office report.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...es/1288699002/

[armoredman]

And when WILL the OP come back and defend his position?

[44 AMP]

And when WILL the OP come back and defend his position?

Probably when its freezing in a very hot place......

Another of our problems about the whole issue is simply that there is NO push from the top down to enforce the law. During one of the Clinton years they bragged how the law had denied over 80,000 firearms. Best info we got at that time was 44 (or 48) were prosecuted. Never heard how many convicted, if any.

When our current President was Vice President, I saw him asked "why doesn't the Federal Government prosecute more people for illegally trying to buy a gun". His answer was a (dismissive, it seemed to me) hand wave and to say "We don't have time for that..."

Seems to send a message to me, that as long as the firearm was denied, the folks running govt don't care about the crime of prohibited person trying to buy a gun, or the (as I understand it) separate crime of lying on the form.

12 out of 112,000? wow! Keep at it guys, eventually you'll reach your target goal of ZERO! I feel SO much safer now....

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by armoredman

And when WILL the OP come back and defend his position?

Don't hold your breath.

He has been back, as recently as 4:20 p.m. yesterday (Tuesday, January 17). But he didn't post. My guess is that what's happening is one of the following:

1. He's basically a troll -- he put up the post and now he just sits back and chuckles while we argue over his so-called position; or ...
2. He's an anti-gun activist who posted in order to see what our response would be. In this scenario, he's taking notes that he can use to strengthen his arguments against our arguments.

[stagpanther]

Or maybe he figured out quickly he simply was going to be a target and get bombed and strafed by everyone on the forum regardless of his motivations.

[Tom Servo]

His answer was a (dismissive, it seemed to me) hand wave and to say "We don't have time for that..."

There were Senate hearings when they were pushing the 2013 Manchin/Toomey background-check bill. The Baltimore police commissioner was giving testimony on why he thought we needed the bill. One Senator pointed out the fact that people who violated the Brady Law were never prosecuted in his city, and his response was "those are paper crimes. We don't have time to go after paper crimes."

When I was in the industry, we contacted law enforcement several times after denying transactions in which it was glaringly obvious they were straw purchases or attempts at trafficking. It went like this:

• Call the ATF. Get told it's not really their thing, and I should contact local law enforcement.
• Call local law enforcement and get told that's the job of the ATF.
• Call both parties back to confirm. Get names and numbers.
• Make copies of all the paperwork and camera footage, get written statements from everyone involved, and keep it on file.

That last part was important. I had a county sheriff come in one day and ask me if I'd ever sold a gun to John Doe. I checked records, and nope. Well, did he maybe try to buy a gun? Hold on. Do you have a picture of the guy?

You do? OK. Wait. Yeah, I know that guy. I threw him out for attempting a blatant straw purchase. Then I called you guys. I have all the records here. See? This is where I talked to Sargeant Jones and he blew me off. So...oh. OK. See you later.

I had the same conversation with two ATF agents at one point when they got testy with me.

[Frank Ettin]

We don’t do conspiracy theories here. Stick to facts.

[mack59]

I did years ago, when I actually believed I was dealing with people in good faith. Given my education in how things work in the last 20 years and the total corruption I have seen. Yeah, I don't trust government.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by mack59

I did years ago, when I actually believed I was dealing with people in good faith.

I may be missing something here, but ... you did what years ago?

[44 AMP]

I believe dealing with people in good faith is what we all should be doing. Sadly, many people don't.

I also believe that Blind Faith was a British rock band formed in 1969.....