New pressure for background checks

nova · Apr 16, 2010

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?

longwatch · Apr 16, 2010

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.

darthmord · Apr 16, 2010

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.

Click to expand...

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?

longwatch · Apr 16, 2010

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.

nova · Apr 16, 2010

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Grapeshot · Apr 16, 2010

imported post

nova wrote:

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.

Cite reference to "when it is snowing out," please.

Yata hey

nova · Apr 16, 2010

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

nova wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

Cite reference to "when it is snowing out," please.

Yata hey

:lol:

fully_armed_biker · Apr 16, 2010

imported post

All I know is I've bought quite a few guns at gun shows...and have never waited less than an hour and a half for the "instant" BG check...even waiting as long as 2-1/2 hours once...and I have a squeaky clean background...one that would make alter boys ashamed for what they've done.

The plain and simple fact of the matter is that the government (federal or state) has NO business telling me what I can or can't do with my own private property...who I can and can't sell it it to, absent of any first hand knowledge that would preclude an individual from owning that property...and placing an impediment requiring me to do a background check on a potential buyer of my personal property when time could be of the essence...for instance if I were to fall on hard times and needed to come up with money quicklyto feed my family and keep a roof over their heads, is nothing short of unreasonable.

wylde007 · Apr 16, 2010

imported post

There is no loophole.

I'm not the least bit surprised to see a self-prescribed mouthpiece for law enforcement here in support of "closing" it though.

Firearms in the hands of private citizens are private property and no more the domain or dominion of the state than my real property (house, land, etc) or any other personal property, be it my microwave, my truck or a stack of firewood.

Government has no business intervening or involving itself in the affairs of private citizens and firearms ownership, above and beyond anything else, is a fundamental right that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Yes. I'm one of those who believe that all arms (as intended by the founders) belong to the people. That means ALL ARMS, not just the ones government says we can own. Then they always have the upper hand and that has proven disastrous.

NovaCop · Apr 16, 2010

imported post

wylde007 wrote:

There is no loophole.

I'm not the least bit surprised to see a self-prescribed mouthpiece for law enforcement here in support of "closing" it though.

Firearms in the hands of private citizens are private property and no more the domain or dominion of the state than my real property (house, land, etc) or any other personal property, be it my microwave, my truck or a stack of firewood.

Government has no business intervening or involving itself in the affairs of private citizens and firearms ownership, above and beyond anything else, is a fundamental right that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Yes. I'm one of those who believe that all arms (as intended by the founders) belong to the people. That means ALL ARMS, not just the ones government says we can own. Then they always have the upper hand and that has proven disastrous.

So let me understand your ideology correctly: You believe it would be ok for someone to sell their prescription medication to anyone? How about making and selling their own alcohol without regulation? Explosives? All personal property that may be legal for one to possess, but there is regulations against the sale.

It seems that this discussion has once again gotten to the point where we argue whether or not the Constitution is a "living document". I believe it is, and allows for restrictions to a certain degree for various reasons. There are a lot of gun laws already in place, which cut down on crime. You may argue that gun laws don't deter criminals (I can see both sides on this one), however you must agree some gun laws result in keeping criminals locked up and off the streets, thus lowering the chances of crime.

Confederate flag? Truck and firewood? Government stay out of my life slogan? Man Wylde you might be the poster child of what most citizens view gun rights extremists.

wylde007 · Apr 16, 2010

imported post

NovaCop10 wrote:

So let me understand your ideology correctly: You believe it would be ok for someone to sell their prescription medication to anyone? How about making and selling their own alcohol without regulation? Explosives? All personal property that may be legal for one to possess, but there is regulations against the sale.

You understand the ideology of a Constitutionalist very well.

It seems that this discussion has once again gotten to the point where we argue whether or not the Constitution is a "living document". I believe it is, and allows for restrictions to a certain degree for various reasons.

You were wrong when you said it before and you're wrong now.

There are a lot of gun laws already in place, which cut down on crime. You may argue that gun laws don't deter criminals (I can see both sides on this one), however you must agree some gun laws result in keeping criminals locked up and off the streets, thus lowering the chances of crime.

Guns don't commit crimes. People do.

Confederate flag? Truck and firewood? Government stay out of my life slogan? Man Wylde you might be the poster child of what most citizens view gun rights extremists.

I might just be the poster child of the kind of person that you fear - one who despises and distrusts authority (and for good reason), one who wants to live his life unfettered by rules and policy whose only purpose is to protect an elite group of "enforcers" and fill the coffers of their masters, one who believes that his ancestors were 100% correct wanting to leave the union and that people like you exemplify the very reason we didn't want any part of your government.

You almost make it too easy.

Can I expect to see you busting heads at Fort Hunt on Monday? I'll be hard to miss. Come say "Hello".

Grapeshot · Apr 16, 2010

imported post

NovaCop10 wrote:

wylde007 wrote:

There is no loophole.

I'm not the least bit surprised to see a self-prescribed mouthpiece for law enforcement here in support of "closing" it though.

Firearms in the hands of private citizens are private property and no more the domain or dominion of the state than my real property (house, land, etc) or any other personal property, be it my microwave, my truck or a stack of firewood.

Government has no business intervening or involving itself in the affairs of private citizens and firearms ownership, above and beyond anything else, is a fundamental right that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Yes. I'm one of those who believe that all arms (as intended by the founders) belong to the people. That means ALL ARMS, not just the ones government says we can own. Then they always have the upper hand and that has proven disastrous.

Click to expand...

So let me understand your ideology correctly: You believe it would be ok for someone to sell their prescription medication to anyone? How about making and selling their own alcohol without regulation? Explosives? All personal property that may be legal for one to possess, but there is regulations against the sale.

It seems that this discussion has once again gotten to the point where we argue whether or not the Constitution is a "living document". I believe it is, and allows for restrictions to a certain degree for various reasons. There are a lot of gun laws already in place, which cut down on crime. You may argue that gun laws don't deter criminals (I can see both sides on this one), however you must agree some gun laws result in keeping criminals locked up and off the streets, thus lowering the chances of crime.

Confederate flag? Truck and firewood? Government stay out of my life slogan? Man Wylde you might be the poster child of what most citizens view gun rights extremists.

Well lets see - RX medications can be purchased on-line 365 days a year, alcohol can be produced for your own consumption but if you sell it the govt wants its cut and common items can be explosive. What it comes down to is intent and action, not the product. Care to try again?

We can all agree that our prisons are full of people that have harmed no one, but broke a law that was enacted to protect people from harm.

The Constitution a "living document" as in subject to an interpretation to suit the in vogue end - NO SIR. I see it as carved in stone, cast in bronze - follow it, amend it if you must, but do NOT pervert it.

BTW - I drive a pick-up truck and have burned wood. How does your broad brush (2 out of 3) paint me? Ad hominum attacks are generally introduced when there is nothing of substance to say.

Yata hey

tkd2006 · Apr 16, 2010

imported post

personally i dont think there should be background checks on private sales with one exception to that statement.

The so called gunshow loophole only hurts the dealers at the shows that pay for the right to sell firearms there and pay for the tables. To me it would be like someone wanting to sell their 2008 volvo and standing at a volvo used car lot asking everyone that entered if the wanted to buy his car for alot less than the dealer is asking. I mean really if you want to buy a firearm from your neighbor or family relative thats fine but if i as a dealer have paid for an area to sell and you come along with a gun on your hip or back with a sign that says (more or less 30.00 cheaper and no check) you have taken a sale away from me, and you only paid the 6.00 entry fee vs my 2,000.00 set up fee.

Person to person sales (in my opinion) are fine its just when you have a gunshow you then have people show up for that very reason just to buy from some one that doesnt give a crap and will sell to anyone. That to me is the only loophole.

Thundar · Apr 16, 2010

imported post

What Bobby Scott has actually advocated here is the criminalization of gun collecting at gun shows.

There are three types of persons at gun shows private persons, FFL Dealers and FFL Collectors.

Collectors are permitted to trade interstate only for curio and relic firearms. That is the benefit from the Collectors license.

Collectors are not allowed to perform background checks, only dealers are permitted to submit them.

So if the legislation is enacted, using a collectors license becomes a criminal act, thus the claim that Bobby Scott proposes to outlaw gun collecting at gun shows.

Glock27Bill · Apr 16, 2010

imported post

NovaCop10 wrote:

Glock27Bill wrote:

This would be the first step to eliminate FTF sales.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.
<snip>

Bought through a dealer or FTF fro a private citizen?

useful_idiot · Apr 16, 2010

imported post

NovaCop10 wrote:

wylde007 wrote:

There is no loophole

<snip>...you might be the poster child of what most citizens view gun rights extremists.

We are having this discussion on OpenCarry.org. The Brady Bunch says we (open carriers) "are the Storm Troops of the gun lobby."

The "reasonable restrictions" argumentwill be eviscerated and its remains scattered to the four winds each and every time it is raised here.

FWIW, that argument receives the same treatment in the Gungeon atthe Democratic Underground, the FAL Files, ARFCOM, THR, TFL, HK Pro, Sniper Central,the AK Files, BiggerHammer.net, Silencer Talk, Hotel 23, 50 Cal Board, Fifty Cal Shooters Association, etc..

Grapeshot · Apr 16, 2010

imported post

Glock27Bill wrote:

NovaCop10 wrote:

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.
<snip>

Click to expand...

Bought through a dealer or FTF fro a private citizen?

No one said it never happens; however, the numbers are infinitesimally small.

I have first hand knowledge that everybody I know is honest and does their best to stay within the law - especially where guns and self-defense are concerned.

Does my first hand knowledge balance out yours, or are you still more right than I am? :quirky

Yata hey

DrMark · Apr 16, 2010

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.

Mine took 5 minutes years ago. Now it takes hours, and it's that way for pretty much everyone I talk to. For many, it's taking overnight, and dealers are losing sales as folks are saying "forget it" to a next day return visit. Unsat.

NovaCop10 wrote:

What if private gun dealers were held accountable for those that they sell to?

Gun dealers must be Federally licensed. If you ever find a "private gun dealer," they're breaking Federal law.

nova · Apr 16, 2010

imported post

NovaCop10 wrote:

wylde007 wrote:
however you must agree some gun laws result in keeping criminals locked up and off the streets, thus lowering the chances of crime.

How so? Remove all gun laws for a second. There's still laws against murder, assault, reckless endangerment, etc. Gun laws are just another charge to tack on a criminal who's already going down for another crime. Otherwise, they're only making life harder for law abiding citizens like myself who just want to have the best means of protection.

zoom6zoom · Apr 16, 2010

imported post

OK, so let's imagine for a moment that this comes to pass, and any sales between private citizens at a show must have a BG check. There are a few things to consider:

1. Only dealers have access to NICS, so you will have to do the transaction via an 01FF. It's highly improbably that the FBI or VSP will open up the access to individuals.

2. FFL is at the show to sell his guns and make money, not tie up his time and phone running checks for someone who isn't buying from him. Even if he's charging a good fee for running the check, he's now legally committed to retaining the paperwork for twenty years. FFL's will either decide not to do transfers at all, or won't bother coming to shows anymore.

3. Now that background checks are required for private transactions at the shows, well, we can still meet out in the parking lot and do our deal sans government blessing. Which makes the checks meaningless, which means of course that the next target is to require checks for all personal sales. Which eventual means NO personal sales.

It's creeping incrementalism, folks. Don't let the camel get his nose in the tent.

New pressure for background checks

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Legendary Warrior

Lone Star Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member