It was 59% against and 40% for getting rid of the state check when I voted.
The article lauds all the extra benefits of keeping it but like many "systems" it is far from perfect.
I personally know of a man who took his dad's car for a joy ride (stole) and was convicted of a felony when he was 16. With that he couldn't buy a firearm until he was 28 under the law. Unfortunately 16 year olds don't pay attention to the details so when he was 24 he legally bought a firearm at a Hampton gunshow via an FFL and passed state and federal checks. It wasn't until he was pulled over after buying pot that they found the cased & unloaded gun in his trunk and reminded him that he wasn't allowed to have a gun. So now he is a convicted adult felon never to own a gun again. So whether or not the "system" is supposed to catch all these special cases I know for a fact it doesn't.
I've heard of things like this, too. But they have hinged on whether the individual knew that their juvenile conviction would have been a felony if they had been an adult at the time of the offense and/or if the juvenile record was sealed.
True, no system is perfect, and some will filter through. But the system (VA or Fed) which provides the better screen should be the one used. Doesn't the present VA check supercede the Fed check, i.e the result(s) of the VA check are simply accepted by the Feds? At least this way, VA has control over who is included/deleted in any "prohibited person" lists, which should make things easier for persons whose status changes from "prohibited" to "permitted". Locally issued protective orders (notice of which doesn't always make it to the Feds in a timely fashion) come to mind.
Communication between the VA and Fed systems is necessary if prohibited persons are to be stopped for interstate attempts at firearm purchases. Recently, an individual wanted for murder in MD (IIRC) tried to buy a gun at Bob's (in Norfolk), but was tripped up via the (Fed?) BG check. If only the VA system had been available without exchange of data,, he might not have been caught.
If there were no BG checks, would we be at any greater risk of harm by violent individuals than we are now? A few more criminals would likely have guns, but they would be subject to (additional) prosecution under existing statutes that make it a crime to posses a firearm while engaged in their already unlawful activity. Since criminals will ignore the law to arm themselves (for protection against other criminals?), removing barriers to law abiding citizens obtaining tools of self protection seems to be the prudent course to take.
