since9
Campaign Veteran
Between the recent SCOTUS decisions on 2A rights, the looming National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, and the good balance we have here in my state, and the excellent way it's carried out in my county, I'm curious as to what others feel about criminal background checks.
For brevity, let's call it a BC (background check).
Justifications:
1. I believe that's a reasonable precaution to ensure a sale wasn't being made to someone who no longer had the right to keep and bear arms due to criminal activity or mental incapacity.
2. I do not believe this should become a business. That is, businesses shouldn't charge more to conduct one for a private sale than it costs them to do one for their own sales, and should never charge more than it costs to conduct the BC itself.
3. I do believe any business that sells firearms should be required to conduct a BC on request by a private buyer/seller pair as a means of affording access to the greater community.
4. I believe all firearms sales, both public and private, should require a BC before being legally allowed to proceed.
5. I do not believe a BC should be conducted for each and every firearm. That is, if you sell 10 firearms, that's 1 sale, which should require 1 BC.
6. I believe if you make a subsequent sale to the same individual within a reasonably short period of time, say, 30 days, a second BC should not be required.
7. I believe the BC should have no loopholes, to include family members, as crime stats show a significant number of firearms used in crimes belong to someone in the criminal's family, but not the criminal himself.
8. I believe the BC should be required even for gifts, for the same reason as stated in item 7. You just don't know who in your family you can trust. Exception would be gifts to minors in the custody of their parents (joint or sole).
9. I believe that if a BC is not done, and both the seller and buyer were qualified to own/possess a firearm, and the sale itself did not break any other laws, that it should be considered a minor offense (less than a misdemeanor) punishable by a fine of not more than half the value of your average retail handgun (about $250).
10. I believe that if a BC is not done and the buyer would not have passed a BC, the seller would have committed a misdemeanor.
11. I believe that if a buyer is not allowed to own/possess a firearm, the buyer would be subject to whatever rules are already in place concerning that offense.
12. I do not believe any sale should be registered. The only record would be that individual X had a BC done on date/time and passed/failed.
13. I believe that the seller should have the right to keep a summary copy of the BC, stating that individual X passed it on date/time, to be used in his defense should the need ever arise.
Frankly, I like the idea, for a couple of reasons. No, it wouldn't stop illegally-owned guns on the streets. In fact, it wouldn't put much more than a dent in it, as most of those are stolen. It would, however, help drive the exchange of such guns deeper underground, which makes it more costly for illegal sales to be conducted and therefore less likely to be conducted. Thus, it gives teeth to law enforcement to hammer sales of firearms either by criminals or to criminals. Put simply, it empowers them to hammer criminals.
It's nothing more than a minor inconvenience: When I purchased my current carry piece two years ago, my BC cost $15 and took less than 20 minutes to clear.
With respect to the reciprocity issue, we shouldn't have to jump through hoops to exercise our RKBA. Instead of yet another piece of easily misinterpreted legislation like the National CCP Reciprocity bill, I would rather lower the boom on the criminals. If they're on probation, send them back. If they mentally deranged, get them help or institutionalize them.
I would also rather lower the boom on anyone who aids these folks in obtaining a firearm. Honest, law-abiding citizens will steer clear of sales to criminals.
Thus, I support the instant background checks, and would even (gasp!) go so far as to require the buyer or seller to pay the $15 fee at a gun store (who has the equipment) to do the check before a seller can legally sell the firearm.
Finally, I believe that in closing the gun show loophole, it'd put a sock in the mouths of the Brady Bunch, at least on that issue.
I think it's time for the poll...
For brevity, let's call it a BC (background check).
Justifications:
1. I believe that's a reasonable precaution to ensure a sale wasn't being made to someone who no longer had the right to keep and bear arms due to criminal activity or mental incapacity.
2. I do not believe this should become a business. That is, businesses shouldn't charge more to conduct one for a private sale than it costs them to do one for their own sales, and should never charge more than it costs to conduct the BC itself.
3. I do believe any business that sells firearms should be required to conduct a BC on request by a private buyer/seller pair as a means of affording access to the greater community.
4. I believe all firearms sales, both public and private, should require a BC before being legally allowed to proceed.
5. I do not believe a BC should be conducted for each and every firearm. That is, if you sell 10 firearms, that's 1 sale, which should require 1 BC.
6. I believe if you make a subsequent sale to the same individual within a reasonably short period of time, say, 30 days, a second BC should not be required.
7. I believe the BC should have no loopholes, to include family members, as crime stats show a significant number of firearms used in crimes belong to someone in the criminal's family, but not the criminal himself.
8. I believe the BC should be required even for gifts, for the same reason as stated in item 7. You just don't know who in your family you can trust. Exception would be gifts to minors in the custody of their parents (joint or sole).
9. I believe that if a BC is not done, and both the seller and buyer were qualified to own/possess a firearm, and the sale itself did not break any other laws, that it should be considered a minor offense (less than a misdemeanor) punishable by a fine of not more than half the value of your average retail handgun (about $250).
10. I believe that if a BC is not done and the buyer would not have passed a BC, the seller would have committed a misdemeanor.
11. I believe that if a buyer is not allowed to own/possess a firearm, the buyer would be subject to whatever rules are already in place concerning that offense.
12. I do not believe any sale should be registered. The only record would be that individual X had a BC done on date/time and passed/failed.
13. I believe that the seller should have the right to keep a summary copy of the BC, stating that individual X passed it on date/time, to be used in his defense should the need ever arise.
Frankly, I like the idea, for a couple of reasons. No, it wouldn't stop illegally-owned guns on the streets. In fact, it wouldn't put much more than a dent in it, as most of those are stolen. It would, however, help drive the exchange of such guns deeper underground, which makes it more costly for illegal sales to be conducted and therefore less likely to be conducted. Thus, it gives teeth to law enforcement to hammer sales of firearms either by criminals or to criminals. Put simply, it empowers them to hammer criminals.
It's nothing more than a minor inconvenience: When I purchased my current carry piece two years ago, my BC cost $15 and took less than 20 minutes to clear.
With respect to the reciprocity issue, we shouldn't have to jump through hoops to exercise our RKBA. Instead of yet another piece of easily misinterpreted legislation like the National CCP Reciprocity bill, I would rather lower the boom on the criminals. If they're on probation, send them back. If they mentally deranged, get them help or institutionalize them.
I would also rather lower the boom on anyone who aids these folks in obtaining a firearm. Honest, law-abiding citizens will steer clear of sales to criminals.
Thus, I support the instant background checks, and would even (gasp!) go so far as to require the buyer or seller to pay the $15 fee at a gun store (who has the equipment) to do the check before a seller can legally sell the firearm.
Finally, I believe that in closing the gun show loophole, it'd put a sock in the mouths of the Brady Bunch, at least on that issue.
I think it's time for the poll...
