Connecticut Carry - Press Release - Open up the background check systems

From: http://ctcarry.com/News/Release/e38fed38-8862-4963-a5dd-eb1e5c68b955

Here is something for the ‘do something’ crowd to actually do that we can agree upon

Hartford, Connecticut, February 5th, 2013:

It seems that everywhere we look as a pro-rights organization, we see and hear people talking about ‘common sense’ and ‘compromise’. Unfortunately, the things that are proposed as ‘common sense’ are often totalitarian edicts that will result in the loss of life and property and the ‘compromise’ consists of anti-rights activists demanding those edicts and then stating that we are unreasonable when we don’t agree with them.

In the interest of ‘common sense’ and compromise, Connecticut Carry proposes that the legislators instead work towards a bill to completely open our Connecticut state background check system and provide instant access to it for free via the internet and possibly via smart phone applications as well. In working towards this goal, Connecticut Carry would be happy to assist, since we have experience in providing a Conviction History Search service to our members through our website.

Legislators should also work to get the Federal background check system opened to the public and available instantly online. Already the AIFIS system that the Connecticut State Police use for national background checks is automated and returns results in less than 2 hours. There is no reason the NICS couldn’t be opened to the public with near-instant results via handheld devices for free.

This would go a long way towards more background checks in our state and in our country as people would surely appreciate a free and easy way to check the criminal status of people trying to buy a firearm privately from them. No gun owner wants to sell to a prohibited person. Why not give them the tools to make sure they do not since we already have Federal criminal penalties that apply if they do sell to a criminal?

This is a real change that our legislators could be working towards instead of insulting the hundreds of thousands of responsible gun owners in Connecticut with ridiculous bill proposals that seek to ban the majority of firearms and firearms accessories in private hands.

Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

Contact:
Richard Burgess
President
Connecticut Carry, Inc
Ph: 203-208-9577
Email: rich@ctcarry.com
http://ctcarry.com

Just a couple thoughts:

Comment: If we really MUST suffer the indignity and infringement of a background check for simple possession or carry of legal, constitutionally protected tools, it would surely be best that it concern the person alone, and not be linked to any particular gun as most systems currently do.

Question: How would it be envisioned that such a system protect against abuse of privacy if everyone can run checks against anyone?

Concern: In funding, constructing, and implementing such a system, you may be opening the door to the next natural step: mandatory checks for all private sales. When the gun grabbers next propose that, it would no longer entail all those prohibiting costs and development (already in place through this initiative) but simply the official decree to complete the circle of universal registration.

Riverdance said:

Comment: If we really MUST suffer the indignity and infringement of a background check for simple possession or carry of legal, constitutionally protected tools, it would surely be best that it concern the person alone, and not be linked to any particular gun as most systems currently do.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Question: How would it be envisioned that such a system protect against abuse of privacy if everyone can run checks against anyone?

Click to expand...

Criminal records are public information. Regardless, all current systems simply give a yes, no or delay status. This is hardly a privacy issue. But I would certainly be open to a system that allows anyone to run a quick check on a babysitter, teacher, debtor, etc. I would be even happier if that system wasn't run or managed by the government, but oh well for now.

Concern: In funding, constructing, and implementing such a system, you may be opening the door to the next natural step: mandatory checks for all private sales. When the gun grabbers next propose that, it would no longer entail all those prohibiting costs and development (already in place through this initiative) but simply the official decree to complete the circle of universal registration.

Click to expand...

That door is already open. The point of opening the system to the public is to allow private checks voluntarily and without registration.

The argument of cost is always a bad one in the face of people who

a) Think the bigger government is, the better we all are.
b) There is no $$$ amount that is too good to protect our children from dreaded, evil guns. You know, unless we are talking about money used to put armed security into schools. Then that is simply too expensive.

Rich B said:

Regardless, all current systems simply give a yes, no or delay status.

Click to expand...

I know it's a bit OT, but somewhat relevant. Can you explain what the "delay" response is, what it means in regards to why this response was given, and what it means for future stuff? I know some people who have received a "delay" response initially when purchasing a firearm, then after the salesperson remained on the line another couple minutes was followed by a "yes/approval" response, but no idea why this happened, especially for one of the people where an immediate yes was given for the first purchase, then a few weeks later was given the delay followed by a yes for the 2nd firearm purchase.

motoxmann said:

I know it's a bit OT, but somewhat relevant. Can you explain what the "delay" response is, what it means in regards to why this response was given, and what it means for future stuff? I know some people who have received a "delay" response initially when purchasing a firearm, then after the salesperson remained on the line another couple minutes was followed by a "yes/approval" response, but no idea why this happened, especially for one of the people where an immediate yes was given for the first purchase, then a few weeks later was given the delay followed by a yes for the 2nd firearm purchase.

Click to expand...

I am not a NICS expert, but the delay status as I understand it is basically a 'wait while someone looks into it' kind of thing. Otherwise it is an automated response.

Riverdance said:

Just a couple thoughts:

Comment: If we really MUST suffer the indignity and infringement of a background check for simple possession or carry of legal, constitutionally protected tools, it would surely be best that it concern the person alone, and not be linked to any particular gun as most systems currently do.

Question: How would it be envisioned that such a system protect against abuse of privacy if everyone can run checks against anyone?

Concern: In funding, constructing, and implementing such a system, you may be opening the door to the next natural step: mandatory checks for all private sales. When the gun grabbers next propose that, it would no longer entail all those prohibiting costs and development (already in place through this initiative) but simply the official decree to complete the circle of universal registration.

Click to expand...

+1 BR checks should be pushed t be abolished, not expanded.

Rich B said:

I am not a NICS expert, but the delay status as I understand it is basically a 'wait while someone looks into it' kind of thing. Otherwise it is an automated response.

Click to expand...

ok, I was thinking it might be something where the delay is intentional because something was discovered that may require the purchaser to be detained or something stupid like that, and the delay is to keep the purchaser at the known location while investigated a bit deeper and giving LEO's a chance to arrive if necessary lol. hey, you never know.

motoxmann said:

ok, I was thinking it might be something where the delay is intentional because something was discovered that may require the purchaser to be detained or something stupid like that, and the delay is to keep the purchaser at the known location while investigated a bit deeper and giving LEO's a chance to arrive if necessary lol. hey, you never know.

Click to expand...

I am pretty sure you are 'free to go'. They have all your information if they think you are trying to break the law. Wouldn't be difficult to find you.

Rich B said:

I am pretty sure you are 'free to go'. They have all your information if they think you are trying to break the law. Wouldn't be difficult to find you.

Click to expand...

95% of delay is due to the system being down ...

Rich B said:

I am pretty sure you are 'free to go'. They have all your information if they think you are trying to break the law. Wouldn't be difficult to find you.

Click to expand...

very true

davidmcbeth said:

95% of delay is due to the system being down ...

Click to expand...

good to know. this was actually my first assumption, but after paying some attention at my frequent trips to gun stores I noticed on the form there's a space for "initial response", and another spot for "if initial response was 'delay', what is followup response" or something along those lines. which made me second guess the purpose of a "delay" response.

thanks for the info guys

I like the concept, as long as it is illegal to knowingly sell a firearm to a prohibited person. I don't like the current CT system that requires you to register the sale just to do a (self protecting) background check for a long gun. I would like any new system to provide me with some record that the buyer was not prohibited at the time of the sale, for my own records in case there was ever any question. Yeah, it sounds like a doctor ordering extra tests, but...

I think the offer to help develop the system is great but will be refused because 1) it makes sense, and 2) they can't let the "gun nuts" touch the system