Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 66

Thread: New pressure for background checks

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NoVa, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    471

    Post imported post

    So, this was in the news today: http://wtop.com/?nid=846&tag_ids[]=14898 I have my own opinion on the subject but what do you all think? Pros vs Cons? Will the VCDL take a side on the topic? Weigh in.

    (for whatever reason, the link above will require you to click on a tag to see a recent article on Jim Moran and Co. and their stance on gun control).

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    VCDL has always resisted the urge to close the so called 'gun show loophole' or more accurately called private sale ban.

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,627

    Post imported post

    See here who the offenders are - tell them "NO."

    3 Virginia congressmen urge checks at gun shows Apr 15th 2010 Democrats Jim Moran, Bobby Scott and Gerald Connolly sent a letter to members of the House of Representatives Thursday asking them to support a bill to require private sellers to perform background checks on buyers at gun shows.

    A bill was introduced in Congress last May, but has yet to be heard in committee.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NoVa, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    471

    Post imported post

    longwatch wrote:
    VCDL has always resisted the urge to close the so called 'gun show loophole' or more accurately called private sale ban.
    Ok, now I have been on this site for months now. I have read others' opinions with an open mind, and may even admit a small positive change in opinion about what I previously thought of the "stereotypical open carrier". Looking at this issue however, I believe background checks at gun shows would only have positive results. I have some issues with the VCDL, mostly with the visual that they oppose ANY laws regarding firearms. Does anyone know any specific reasoning why the VCDL takes this stance? As a gun owner, I support anything that would promote the image and safety of gun owners. I think that a quick "over the phone" background check on everyone purchasing a firearm (which takes 5 minutes) should be supported. I cannot see negative consequences to having the check. I don't believe it violates or tramples on any Constitutional rights. Courts have already ruled that certain individuals cannot own a handgun (felons/protection orders/12 year olds/etc), so a check would only help to exclude those who cannot legally own a gun from purchasing. Keep the guns in the good guy's hand (or lady's). If anyone has any thoughts on how it would be detrimental, please share (besides just stating "oh we have rights").

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Chesapeake, VA
    Posts
    14

    Post imported post

    NovaCop10 wrote:
    longwatch wrote:
    VCDL has always resisted the urge to close the so called 'gun show loophole' or more accurately called private sale ban.
    Ok, now I have been on this site for months now. I have read others' opinions with an open mind, and may even admit a small positive change in opinion about what I previously thought of the "stereotypical open carrier". Looking at this issue however, I believe background checks at gun shows would only have positive results. I have some issues with the VCDL, mostly with the visual that they oppose ANY laws regarding firearms. Does anyone know any specific reasoning why the VCDL takes this stance? As a gun owner, I support anything that would promote the image and safety of gun owners. I think that a quick "over the phone" background check on everyone purchasing a firearm (which takes 5 minutes) should be supported. I cannot see negative consequences to having the check. I don't believe it violates or tramples on any Constitutional rights. Courts have already ruled that certain individuals cannot own a handgun (felons/protection orders/12 year olds/etc), so a check would only help to exclude those who cannot legally own a gun from purchasing. Keep the guns in the good guy's hand (or lady's). If anyone has any thoughts on how it would be detrimental, please share (besides just stating "oh we have rights").
    This would be the first step to eliminate FTF sales. Look at it this way; cars kill many more people than guns. Should you be required to do a background check on a potential buyer of your used car to make sure they are not a habitual drunk driver and that they have a license?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Louisa County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    821

    Post imported post

    This would be the first step to eliminate FTF sales.
    This^^^

    And with no tangible benefit.

    There is no evidence whatsoever that FTF sales have any impact on crime.

    If you want to restrict private citizens engaged in the sale of a legal product, there needs to be a better reason than "appearances."

    And most gun groups have been behind all efforts to hold criminals accountable.

    Wanna make things safer? Fix our judicial revolving door and require politicians to fully enforce the laws that already exist when crimes are committed.

  7. #7
    Regular Member ChinChin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    683

    Post imported post

    Glock27Bill wrote
    Wanna make things safer? Fix our judicial revolving door and require politicians to fully enforce the laws that already exist when crimes are committed.
    What Bill said.
    The problem with the internet is nobody can really tell when you’re serious and when you’re being sarcastic. –Abraham Lincoln

  8. #8
    Regular Member vt800c's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Springfield,VA
    Posts
    222

    Post imported post

    NovaCop10 wrote:
    I think that a quick "over the phone" background check on everyone purchasing a firearm (which takes 5 minutes) should be supported.
    First, sir, you are making an assumption that a background check will be 'quick' and 'over the phone'. Having purchased at gun shows, I've been lucky. the longest I've waited was about 20 minutes. supposed the number of calls doubles..do you think the time will double? experience says it's an exponential relationship. adding to an overstressed system is not a way of fixing it.

    IMHO and IANAL.
    I sell ObamaBlades: Single-edged razors you can use to either remove the bumper sticker off your car, or slash your wrists..whichever works best for you.

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    Novacop, this has been hashed out during the General Assembly session. It didn't fly then and if gun owners stick by their guns (pun intended) it will never get off of the ground.

    No...this post doesn't give you any answers WHY it would be bad. That's because it isn't a legitimate question. You're on an urban safari again. Aren't you supposed to be putting your life on the line for us...or eating doughnuts or something?


  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373

    Post imported post

    What if Congress passes a new law prohibiting the private sale ofproperty from one person to another, where both are residents of the same state in which the transaction occurs? What real effect would that have, given the Constitutional limits on federal power? Congress doesn't have the authority to pass such legislation and any attempt to do so would be an ultra vires act. Beyond their power, in other words, and thus legally void.

    Moran is from Massachussetts, not Virginia. And Bobby Scott is a clever guy, but doesn't think things through sufficiently, in my opinion. I think they should both go.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NoVa, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    471

    Post imported post

    vt800c wrote:
    NovaCop10 wrote:
    I think that a quick "over the phone" background check on everyone purchasing a firearm (which takes 5 minutes) should be supported.
    First, sir, you are making an assumption that a background check will be 'quick' and 'over the phone'. Having purchased at gun shows, I've been lucky. the longest I've waited was about 20 minutes. supposed the number of calls doubles..do you think the time will double? experience says it's an exponential relationship. adding to an overstressed system is not a way of fixing it.

    IMHO and IANAL.
    I've bought guns before at gun shows in different states and never waited more than 10 minutes. One state is one that requires the background checks. A few more checks might result in a somewhat longer delay, but I don't believe it would amount to any inconvenience. I look at it like I do with the airport security- Yes, I hate waiting in that long security line, but understand the purpose is for my own safety.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NoVa, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    471

    Post imported post

    peter nap wrote:
    Novacop, this has been hashed out during the General Assembly session. It didn't fly then and if gun owners stick by their guns (pun intended) it will never get off of the ground.

    No...this post doesn't give you any answers WHY it would be bad. That's because it isn't a legitimate question. You're on an urban safari again. Aren't you supposed to be putting your life on the line for us...or eating doughnuts or something?
    A personal attack on me while avoiding the issue at hand reflects poorly on your part and further adds to your ignorance. I've heard many users on here post about "changing minds" and educating the public as your mission statement. If you want to change minds, then you should engage in a discussion about the topic by showing your point of view and support that view with reasoning. By just saying "let's stick to our guns and you go eat doughnuts cop", this will result in the public having a negative view on the organization as a whole.

    Urban safari? I just brought to the table a legitimate issue at hand and was curious to how the "other side" might be reason their opinion. I'm sure there are OC'ers out there that would support closing the loophole and obviously there are those that oppose. Why not talk about it in a discussion? Purpose of a forum?

  13. #13
    Regular Member Uber_Olafsun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    585

    Post imported post

    NovaCop10 wrote:
    vt800c wrote:
    NovaCop10 wrote:
    I think that a quick "over the phone" background check on everyone purchasing a firearm (which takes 5 minutes) should be supported.
    First, sir, you are making an assumption that a background check will be 'quick' and 'over the phone'. Having purchased at gun shows, I've been lucky. the longest I've waited was about 20 minutes. supposed the number of calls doubles..do you think the time will double? experience says it's an exponential relationship. adding to an overstressed system is not a way of fixing it.

    IMHO and IANAL.
    I've bought guns before at gun shows in different states and never waited more than 10 minutes. One state is one that requires the background checks. A few more checks might result in a somewhat longer delay, but I don't believe it would amount to any inconvenience. I look at it like I do with the airport security- Yes, I hate waiting in that long security line, but understand the purpose is for my own safety.
    Yeah but at the airport the line keeps moving. They don't stop and say come back later and maybe we will let you through. When I got my gun the background check took about 30 minutes to process. I got mine early though. Later in the day people who were behind us in the line were still in line waiting.

    Some people keep saying they want background checks on all purchases then at the same time don't want to have the background dept fully manned. More work with less people. Oh yeah nothing can go wrong there.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NoVa, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    471

    Post imported post

    Glock27Bill wrote:
    This would be the first step to eliminate FTF sales.
    This^^^

    And with no tangible benefit.

    There is no evidence whatsoever that FTF sales have any impact on crime.

    If you want to restrict private citizens engaged in the sale of a legal product, there needs to be a better reason than "appearances."

    And most gun groups have been behind all efforts to hold criminals accountable.

    Wanna make things safer? Fix our judicial revolving door and require politicians to fully enforce the laws that already exist when crimes are committed.
    I will concur with you on the judicial and legislative changes. Our system is way too lenient, especially on violent crimes that involve firearms. I would support stricter sentencing for those who use or imply a firearm. I still believe that the gun show loop hole should be closed and have first hand knowledge of criminals obtaining guns via gun shows. It does happen.

    What if private gun dealers were held accountable for those that they sell to? Just like a bar owner is responsible if someone they overly serve alcohol kills someone in a car crash. They are selling a potentially deadly item to someone so they should take precautions to make sure that person is legally justified in having that weapon.

    A comment above argued about the Govt. regulating all private transactions. Obviously the Govt. does regulate many transactions now. Also, firearms are much more regulated than the average private property item for obvious reasons.


  15. #15
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373

    Post imported post

    NovaCop10 wrote:
    ...
    A comment above argued about the Govt. regulating all private transactions. Obviously the Govt. does regulate many transactions now. Also, firearms are much more regulated than the average private property item for obvious reasons.
    Which Government? The stuff they teach in high school government classes about how the "Government of the United States" is a hierarchical structure with the U.S. at the top, the states below that, municipalities below that, and the people on the bottom is dead wrong. If you believe the Constitution, the People are on top, and the state and federal governments are below that as parallel structures with different powers and functions, and agencies and municipalities below those as appropriate.

    The issue here is about federal regulation of purely intrastate transactions. There's no question in my mind that Virginia could regulate such transactions if it chose to do so, but that's not what's at issue in this thread.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NoVa, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    471

    Post imported post

    Uber_Olafsun wrote:
    NovaCop10 wrote:
    vt800c wrote:
    NovaCop10 wrote:
    I think that a quick "over the phone" background check on everyone purchasing a firearm (which takes 5 minutes) should be supported.
    First, sir, you are making an assumption that a background check will be 'quick' and 'over the phone'. Having purchased at gun shows, I've been lucky. the longest I've waited was about 20 minutes. supposed the number of calls doubles..do you think the time will double? experience says it's an exponential relationship. adding to an overstressed system is not a way of fixing it.

    IMHO and IANAL.
    I've bought guns before at gun shows in different states and never waited more than 10 minutes. One state is one that requires the background checks. A few more checks might result in a somewhat longer delay, but I don't believe it would amount to any inconvenience. I look at it like I do with the airport security- Yes, I hate waiting in that long security line, but understand the purpose is for my own safety.
    Yeah but at the airport the line keeps moving. They don't stop and say come back later and maybe we will let you through. When I got my gun the background check took about 30 minutes to process. I got mine early though. Later in the day people who were behind us in the line were still in line waiting.

    Some people keep saying they want background checks on all purchases then at the same time don't want to have the background dept fully manned. More work with less people. Oh yeah nothing can go wrong there.
    A quick solution to that problem- more employees in the background department. Obviously each dealer would be charged a fee for the check, thus adding more jobs and revenue for the state.

    Airport lines move? Maybe at a slow crawl. You can also be denied at the end of that line as well if you don't meet the security requirements. I understand that waiting any period of time for a firearm is an inconvenience, but in my opinion, it would be worth the wait to support the integrity of gun shows. Like mentioned above, I have had the check done, waited 5-10 minutes, and walked off with my gun. Also, like stated above, this occurred in a state that requires background checks at gun shows for handguns. I have never heard anyone cry about the wait time. In fact, most people I've encountered who were looking to be new gun owners, thought it took days to be cleared to take home a firearm.

  17. #17
    Regular Member thnycav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Windsor VA, ,
    Posts
    305

    Post imported post

    First of all I do not think the the BGs go to gun-shows to buy arms, but I would like to know if I'm selling a firearm to some one that is legal to buy one.

    With that said it would be easy for the local police to setup a booth and run checks. If you plan on buying a firearm go to them and they run the check and the check would be good for all the purchases you do during the day.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Gloucester, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    NovaCop10 wrote:
    snip... Also, firearms are much more regulated than the average private property item for obvious reasons.
    What are these obvious reasons? I will take a shot:Pat what you mean..I assume you are implying that since firearms have the ability to cause death and harm if mis-used, more so than let's say a reclining chair.

    Yet we do not see the government, either federal, state or local, attempting to control religion. Various people's beliefs in some god cause many many deaths each year, either by direct violence, or inciting others to violence, or ignoring medical treatment for minors, or what have you.

    Why not background checks for religious services, after all, lot's of murderers justify their deeds as "god's" will. And many of those don't even use guns, some use box cutters, and aircraft.

    How about background checks for hosting a discussion forum, or printing an independent newspaper, or better yet for creating a social group such as the Lion's Club, or Moose Lodge, hell wasn't Ted Bundy a registered democrat? Better start backgrounding(is that a new word?),all those pesky democrats(maybe not a bad idea).

    I don't speak for the VCDL, butI'm a member,although Ionly speak for myself. Regulating our Constitutional rights is wrong wrong wrong, that slippery slope has been pulling this nation down for decades. Thus I completely understand the opposition to gun laws of any sorts.

    I am not oppossed to background checks for a CHP, but that is not restricting excercising of a Civil Right, IMO. But any kind of regulation making purchasing or carrying a weapon in plain sight more difficult should simply be done a way with.



  19. #19
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,627

    Post imported post

    NovaCop10 What is disconcerting is the misinformed and contentious tone of your posts on this thread when viewed together.

    Most (all?) of the posters here will tell you that we do NOT need more federal laws. Our GA is responsible for making such decisions effecting Virginians so that is my response to your opening post.

    You immediately (your 2nd post) change your POV from the original statement to that of VCDL's perceived stance - worse you take out of context misinformation on FTC operations and invite us to argue the merits of whether background checks are good - these are two totally separate issues - you have effectively high jacked your own thread. Was this accidental or to promote dissension?

    1) Do you subscribe to the Va-Alerts? They are free and will explain VCDL's stance on this and other issues very clearly - straight from the horses mouth w/o any media or anti spin and w/o any outside opinions on what that stance is.
    http://www.vcdl.org/static/va-alert.html

    2) The delays in approval/denial from FTC are strangely not consistent with the contention that it is a result of budget cuts. This is a political potato being sliced and diced to suit the presentation of the particular chef.

    The checks could (should?) be done at a substantial profit to the state within the present rate structure. Every background check in Va. is done twice - one is free, the other is broken. The GA can fix this - we can't.

    3) "Reasonable gun laws" has become the mantra for diminishing our RKBA. With 20,000 such laws on the books, which one has been effective in stopping crime?

    4) There are many threads here where these horses have been beaten to death, resurrected and re-slaughtered. There is nothing new that has been brought to the table. The search function of this forum is your friend.

    What is in your wallet?

    Yata hey








    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,156

    Post imported post

    Cho passed two background checks and went on to kill 32 people.

    And these checks are NOT "instant". The past few months in Virginia they have been delaying most people, meaning that if you bought at a show on Sat, you'd have to come back the next day to see if you have the government's permission to exercise a right. If you bought on a Sunday, then you'll have to figure out how you're going to pick your gun up from a dealer 5 hours away in the other end of the state.

    Simply put, putting a bigger strain on an already strained system will kill gun shows.

    And California has NO private sales, and requires all AR15s and other "evil looking" guns, as well as all handguns, to actually be registered. For what its worth, I know I'm safer in Richmond than Los Angeles.

    If we fixed the problem of having felons let out of prison (and making so many things felonies that shouldn't be) then we wouldn't need to worry about who's trying to buy a gun. If someone can't be trusted with a firearm, why should I trust them in public at all?

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,156

    Post imported post

    Pagan wrote:

    I am not oppossed to background checks for a CHP, but that is not restricting excercising of a Civil Right, IMO. But any kind of regulation making purchasing or carrying a weapon in plain sight more difficult should simply be done a way with.

    I am. Other states have constitutions that say "nothing herein shall prohibit the regulation of carrying concealed weapons".

    Our constitution doesn't say anything like that. I fail to see why it's a protected right to open carry, yet is a privilege to cover it with my jacket, a "privilege" the state has denied me for three years even though I have no criminal or arrest history. When did we start slicing and dicing our rights? Did we decide that we have the right to be Christian but you have to pay a fee every 5 years in order to practice Judaism?

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    I am not for expanding background checks. Plainly the system is more of a burden on the good guys than the bad guys, who will always do whatever extralegal methods they need to get guns.

    Background checks do me no good. I already own a good sized arsenal, have multiple concealed handgun permits, I am myself licensed by Virginia to conduct the background checks. Yet I still have to be checked every time. I don't get delay but I know folks with nearly identical credentials get delayed for hours. The system is already overburdened so adding more checks will worsen things.

    Doing background checks hasn't stopped folks who pass the checks from committing crimes later, I have had the misfortune of having to testify in court to that fact. I have seen more folks get arrested in cases of mistaken identity or plain bad information in the system then bad guys get hooked up.



  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Norfolk, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,000

    Post imported post

    nova wrote:
    Pagan wrote:

    I am not oppossed to background checks for a CHP, but that is not restricting excercising of a Civil Right, IMO. But any kind of regulation making purchasing or carrying a weapon in plain sight more difficult should simply be done a way with.

    I am. Other states have constitutions that say "nothing herein shall prohibit the regulation of carrying concealed weapons".

    Our constitution doesn't say anything like that. I fail to see why it's a protected right to open carry, yet is a privilege to cover it with my jacket, a "privilege" the state has denied me for three years even though I have no criminal or arrest history. When did we start slicing and dicing our rights? Did we decide that we have the right to be Christian but you have to pay a fee every 5 years in order to practice Judaism?
    If you don't mind me asking, why / how are they denying you the option to conceal?

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    Age restriction. Not for much longer though.

    ETA: That's another good reason I oppose expanding the checks, it would cut off access to handguns for those people ages 18-21.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,156

    Post imported post

    darthmord wrote:
    nova wrote:
    Pagan wrote:

    I am not oppossed to background checks for a CHP, but that is not restricting excercising of a Civil Right, IMO. But any kind of regulation making purchasing or carrying a weapon in plain sight more difficult should simply be done a way with.

    I am. Other states have constitutions that say "nothing herein shall prohibit the regulation of carrying concealed weapons".

    Our constitution doesn't say anything like that. I fail to see why it's a protected right to open carry, yet is a privilege to cover it with my jacket, a "privilege" the state has denied me for three years even though I have no criminal or arrest history. When did we start slicing and dicing our rights? Did we decide that we have the right to be Christian but you have to pay a fee every 5 years in order to practice Judaism?
    If you don't mind me asking, why / how are they denying you the option to conceal?
    Age. (eta: longwatch got it ) I already have a couple permits from other states that issue to 18+ and do conceal when traveling in reciprocal states. Less than two weeks until I can get one in VA. I've had my training certificate since 2008, and have had my VA app. ready to go for quite some time now (making sure they don't update the form before I turn it in). Ridiculous, isn't it? I've been OCing since I was 18, yet had to wait three years before paying to get a piece of paper saying its ok for me to wear a jacket over it when its snowing out.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •