background check

Skid, I guess they've just gotten used to saying B O H I C A !!!

MSC 45ACP said:

Skid, I guess they've just gotten used to saying B O H I C A !!!

Click to expand...

But at least they get KY. :uhoh:

stay safe.

It seems intrusive, and a waste of resources, but I'm fine with a monthly BG check IN PRINCIPLE, used as stated.

There are some states where MANY felons have CHP/CHL because they are so bad about following up and pulling permits, or so I've read recently.

I'm not sanguine about the Feds doing this under the aegis of a Const. Carry law. The feds seem to "mess up" just about everything they try to do wrt individual rights.

Posted just to give a different PoV.

Badger Johnson said:

It seems intrusive, and a waste of resources, but I'm fine with a monthly BG check IN PRINCIPLE, used as stated.

There are some states where MANY felons have CHP/CHL because they are so bad about following up and pulling permits, or so I've read recently.

I'm not sanguine about the Feds doing this under the aegis of a Const. Carry law. The feds seem to "mess up" just about everything they try to do wrt individual rights.

Posted just to give a different PoV.

Click to expand...

The speed limit on Main Street is 35MPH. Teenage drivers are speeding on Main Street at an average speed of 45MPH. Therefore, the most logical remedy of the situation is to reduce the speed limit on Main Street to 25MPH.

Seriously, if the problem is that folks who do not meet the qualifications in fact have CHPs, then weed them out. But why hold every CHP holder under suspicion every 30 days after the first, initial, and only system-wide check for ineligible folks? I guess you don't mind being considered suspect, but I do.

stay safe.

Snazuolu said:

Now the way i interpreted this was that if you have a concealed license, whether or not you buy a gun, the FBI does a background check on you every month. Granted this is talking about Kentucky, but i wondered if it is like that here in Va?

Click to expand...

More correctly, the Kentucky State Police, which administers Kentucky's licensing law, conducts new NICS checks on all licensees at least once monthly. Since Virginia (not to mention my state) does not, Virginia CHP holders do not get the benefit of the federal NICS check exemption under 18 U.S.C. § 922(t)(3)(A). In addition, Wisconsin requires states to incorporate by reference all federal disqualifiers in their licensing laws and conduct NICS checks as a condition of recognizing their concealed weapons licenses. If the federal NICS check exemption under 18 U.S.C. § 922(t)(3)(A) wasn't enough to convince certain states, organizations and individuals to modify their licensing statutes, Wisconsin's recognition/reciprocity standard might.

skidmark said:

Does it turn to into a pumpkin at midnight on the 30th day?

Seriously, why do they need to "run" it unless they have an actual, valid need RFN to verify that it remains valid? As I work through this, you folks in KY are getting your names run through the system every 30 days whether or not you are buying a firearm or being charged with a crime or just sitting at home minding your own business. I fail to understand why you put up with the insult of being checked on for no valid reason, let alone paying for how ever many file clerks it takes to run the whole state list, and eating up my federal tax assessment as well to pay the feds' cost of running your names through the system.

Click to expand...

Since the entire process of rechecking all CCDW licenses is computerized, there is no incremental monetary cost to anyone involved. Unlike the redundant state firearm purchase background check systems in Virginia and a few other states, the federal NICS system does not charge "user fees." Gun dealers in the vast majority of states use NICS at no cost, along with the local or state agencies responsible for processing concealed weapons licenses in those states that include NICS checks as part of their respective background check processes. Since these periodic rechecks on licensed individuals are computerized, there is also no added burden that delays background checks for gun purchases.

For those of us who have our doubts as to whether all records of approved NICS checks are really and truly destroyed, those states that have qualified themselves for the federal NICS check exemption under 18 U.S.C. § 922(t)(3)(A) have done their licensees the favor of eliminating NICS checks at the time of individual gun purchases, thereby making it impossible for any nefarious souls in the alphabet soup to acertain the purchases of firearms from FFLs by licensed individuals based on the person's NICS check history. The states that have gone above and beyond the minimal requirements of federal law and regulations by conduting additional NICS checks during the term of a license have done the additional favor of deploying chaffe in the form of (in the case of a 5-year license with monthly NICS checks, literally dozens) additional NICS checks completely unrelated to a firearm acquisition.

skidmark said:

I'm guessing the lawmakers do not trust the courts to report convictions that would impair the privilege of carrying concealed. Or the lawmakers figured the state police did not have enough to do. Or some hoplophobe convinced the lawmakers that permit holders were such a slippery bunch that there must be literaly scads of them out there who were not qualified, seeing as how some other state whose name is Florida or North Carolina was in the news about having all those folks with permits who did not qualify to have them.

But rest safely, Virginia. There is at least one Commonwealth's Attorney who takes the effort to write to the Clerk of the Circuit Court that issued a CHP when someone is accused of a crime that might disqualify someone from keeping their CHP if they are convicted. (Fortunately, there is also a Clerk of the Circuit Court who understand what the law requires in order to recommend suspending/revoking a CHP.)

Click to expand...

Absent a specific, statutory mandate, see, e.g., 18 Pa. Consol. Stat. § 6109(i.1), it is very difficult to ensure complete and accurate reporting of disqualifying convictions occuring within the state of issue. It is next to impossible to ensure complete and accurate interstate reporting. Thus, periodic NICS checks make sense.

While I believe the New York Times grossly exaggerated the number of North Carolina concealed handgun permit holders whose permits were not suspended or revoked after disqualifying convictions in the name of smearing gun owners generally and doing a hatchet job on H.R. 822 in particular, this story should highlight the need for proactive measures to avoid the huge embarassment that would result from any widespread cases of disqualifications falling through the cracks. The overwhelming statistical evidence showing that individuals who go through the process of obtaining a concealed weapons license are far more law-abiding than the general public and rarely commit crimes involving the criminal use of a firearm has greatly aided efforts over the last quarter-century to expand shall-issue laws, expand reciprocity under state laws, reduce location-specific carry bans, and now open the door for recognizing the right to carry without a license in a small but growing number of states. Those states that conduct ongoing background checks on licensed individuals are taking good, proactive measures to minimize their risk of inadvertently giving the antis any factual material--no matter how small--to use against our efforts.

skidmark said:

I'm guessing the lawmakers do not trust the courts to report convictions that would impair the privilege of carrying concealed. Or the lawmakers figured the state police did not have enough to do. Or some hoplophobe convinced the lawmakers that permit holders were such a slippery bunch that there must be literaly scads of them out there who were not qualified, seeing as how some other state whose name is Florida or North Carolina was in the news about having all those folks with permits who did not qualify to have them.

But rest safely, Virginia. There is at least one Commonwealth's Attorney who takes the effort to write to the Clerk of the Circuit Court that issued a CHP when someone is accused of a crime that might disqualify someone from keeping their CHP if they are convicted. (Fortunately, there is also a Clerk of the Circuit Court who understand what the law requires in order to recommend suspending/revoking a CHP.)

stay safe.

Click to expand...

This ties in to an argument I made a few years back on this forum.

Some cop put out the obvious bull-hockey comment that it was important to check CHPs so the cops could snatch the CHP itself if it had been revoked.

The obvious point is that, if it was so vitally important to recover a revoked CHP document, if it was so crucial to the safety of the public, if was so essential that a prohibited person did not retain the actual document, then no sheriff or deputy would fail to drive straight to the fellas house and recover it. The fact that the sheriffs and courts don't move heaven and earth to recover a revoked CHP is all the proof one needs. They know its not important at all. They know taking back the little piece of paper is not going to prevent a revoke-ee from CCing if he wants to. They know the cop can't automatically search for a CCd gun during a detention or traffic stop just because a revocation shows up on the computer without also having probable cause to search for the gun, or Terry search for officer safety. They know that all the lack of CHP (revoked) does is let the cop arrest the revoke-ee if the cops legally happen to find him CCing.

Thus, the current general absence of vigorous action to recover revoked CHP documents proves it is just not that important. And, not even because there aren't that many bad-guy permittees. But, because a revocation and recovery of the document just doesn't accomplish all that much. And, they know it.

Jim, that kind of pro permit nonsense is the very reason many VCDL Bills are actively opposed by gun owners in Virginia.
The really sad part is that I think you actually believe your own propaganda!

What Citizen said!

If there is a problem of not reporting because there is no legislative mandate then look at fixing the problem (write a law mandating reporting). Stop running my name - doing so says you suspect me without any indica of RAS/PC and I find that offensive.


If the monthly checks can be run as an automated computer process, why can't the same be done for every person convicted of a disqualifying criminal offense? Get convicted of X and your name is, as part of the computer processing, run through the CHP list to see if you need to have your CHP revoked. While that still irks me because I cling to the notion that the individual "ought to" surrender their CHP voluntarily I know some will not and some actually do not know they should.

"If you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?" is the first thing I need to worry about. How about "If you can't explain why you believe I've committed a crime you leave me alone"?

Jim - thanks for the explanation of how the automated look-up-my-butt works, but still, "No, thanks."

stay safe.