Help support WeTheArmed.com by visiting our sponsors.

Author Topic: A taste of Universal Background Checks  (Read 29519 times)

goatroper

  • Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 1457

  • Offline
Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
« Reply #25 on: February 26, 2020, 11:18:34 pm »
I think, ideally, that the delay time should be the 30 seconds it'd take for SQL's background check to run.

Ideally. In a perfect world. Which this most definitely is not.

It is not.  And, sorry Charlie, that "30 seconds" is a fantasy world.  I've worked a gun counter.  You just wait, and if it's delayed you never know why.  And if it takes an hour or more without delay you never know why.  I've seen "in research" go over 30 days, and you still never know why.  And you still never answered as to why a citizen needs permission to exercise a Constitutionally-protected right.  Beyond that, I don't know any politicians who are qualified to give such permission.
VirginiaGoatroper

WeTheArmed.com

  • Advertisement
  • ***

    goatroper

    • Contributor
    • ****
    • Posts: 1457

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #26 on: February 26, 2020, 11:20:22 pm »
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to still be holding to the notion that the delay was not an infringement of rights.  Is there, in your opinion, a delay that would not constitute an infringement?  A few days (like mandatory waiting periods)?  A few weeks?  A few months (like for NFA items)?  Would a few years still be OK as long as in the end SQL gets his pistol?

    If there is a point at which delay crosses the line into infringement, when is it?  How is the determination made?  Under what criteria is the time period judged?  Who decides and how?

    Are rights subject to technology?  In other words, do rights exist without NICS?  Specifically, does SQL have the rights to purchase, own, and carry a pistol independent of the existence of NICS?  If NICS is shut down by the Fedreral government for a "NICS holiday" for 30 days, are rights infringed for a month?  Or is that an acceptable inconvenience?

    You see, for me there is no gradation where inconvenience slowly becomes infringement.  For me it is a binary situation.

    Did the Federal government require the filling out of a 4473 before a right could be exercised? Check.
    Did the Federal government require a NICS check before a right could be exercised? Check.

    It doesn't matter how long it took to fill the form.  It doesn't matter how long it took to do the check.  The procedures themselves were infringements.

    You can keep your shades of gray.  I'll keep my rights.

    Very well stated. 
    VirginiaGoatroper

    goatroper

    • Contributor
    • ****
    • Posts: 1457

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #27 on: February 26, 2020, 11:24:42 pm »
    This thread makes me proud to be a member of this forum.   :thumbup1   

    I would point out that any sort of attempted regulation of a person's behavior by a government or its agents eventually results in a negation of that attempt, an escalation or both.  That's how we end up with bureaucratic monstrosities like the D.E.A., or the Department of Education, or - hell, just pick one.   :facepalm

    The problem is not solvable via laws, regulations and even vigorous enforcement.  If you doubt that then kindly explain to me the high incidence of contraband material in maximum security prisons.   If you are of the opinion that weaponry in the hands of private citizens is a bad idea and that they should be banned you're either completely ignorant of history, an idiot or a tyrant.  The genie is out of the bottle on that weaponry thing - long since.  People will be armed.  They will ignore laws that prohibit that or infringe upon it to an unacceptable degree.

    When arms smugglers start running weapons for fun and profit into the United States its not going to be just hideout guns and concealed carry stuff.  No sir, the real money is in automatic weapons and other shoulder fired mayhem like grenade launchers and RPGs.  I mean hell, if you're going to become a felon and risk rotting in prison you might as well go full tilt boogie, no?  Belt fed?  Hand grenades?  Claymore mines?  C4?  Semtex?  Shoulder launched AA missiles?   Hey bro' - you got the dough, we got the goods.  Let's sit down with a cold beer and talk over whatcha' need.

    Don't think it can't happen here.   :coffee 



    Also very well stated, including the reason I'm still here.
    VirginiaGoatroper

    booksmart

    • Token Left Leaning Idealist Libertarian
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 6596
    • E. Pluribus Unum.

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #28 on: February 26, 2020, 11:31:42 pm »
    Well, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I agree with the idea that, once you have been convicted of a violent crime, that you lose the right to have legal access to firearms.

    That's the price you pay. Actions have consequences.

    Unless you can think of a better way for convicted criminals to not be able to walk into a gun store and purchase weapons, that's the world we live in - one with background checks (the duration of which we have the technology to make as quick as grabbing something from the vending machine, if we want to give it the funding).

    Now, you can deal with that reality, or you can howl at the moon and whine about it being unfair.

    goatroper

    • Contributor
    • ****
    • Posts: 1457

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #29 on: February 26, 2020, 11:48:32 pm »
    Well, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I agree with the idea that, once you have been convicted of a violent crime, that you lose the right to have legal access to firearms.

    That's the price you pay. Actions have consequences.


    Doesn't hold water when governments are releasing violent criminals in increasing numbers.  And you're still talking about the rest of us paying that price when we've done nothing violent or criminal.
    VirginiaGoatroper

    booksmart

    • Token Left Leaning Idealist Libertarian
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 6596
    • E. Pluribus Unum.

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #30 on: February 27, 2020, 12:17:22 am »
    I don't see cooling my heels for a background check as 'paying a price'.

    You did not answer his question. 
    You answered a question no one asked; How long should a background check take?

    I'm sorry, did SQLBullet leave the gunshow with the gun or not? If he did, his rights are intact.

    How would you keep people who are federally barred from owning guns from purchasing a gun?  Skip the dream about everybody having the right to own a gun - we do not live in that world.

    Deal with this reality, this now. How do you keep someone with a violent criminal past from walking into a gun store and buying a gun?

    lesptr

    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 403

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #31 on: February 27, 2020, 12:33:27 am »
    I don't see cooling my heels for a background check as 'paying a price'.

    I'm sorry, did SQLBullet leave the gunshow with the gun or not? If he did, his rights are intact.

    How would you keep people who are federally barred from owning guns from purchasing a gun?  Skip the dream about everybody having the right to own a gun - we do not live in that world.

    Deal with this reality, this now. How do you keep someone with a violent criminal past from walking into a gun store and buying a gun?

    The way the Waco’s want to set it up is to make it as difficult as possible for those of us who follow laws to exercise our rights. A criminal will always be able to get a gun. This kind of bulls___ just makes in difficult for us.

    I’m tire of their bulls___.

    No more!

     
    Georgia

    booksmart

    • Token Left Leaning Idealist Libertarian
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 6596
    • E. Pluribus Unum.

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #32 on: February 27, 2020, 12:45:01 am »
    I'm not asking for what hoplophobes are trying to do.  I'm asking you: this reality, this now. How do you keep someone with a violent criminal past from walking into a gun store and buying a gun?

    lesptr

    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 403

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #33 on: February 27, 2020, 01:27:29 am »
    Violent criminals do not walk into gun stores to buy guns!
    Georgia

    coelacanth

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 10032
    • eccentric orbit

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #34 on: February 27, 2020, 02:18:21 am »
    Correct.  There may be a few dumb enough to try that but most violent, career felons have long since learned the back channels and ways to acquire what they want without ever walking through the door at BassProShops / Cabelas .  Beg, borrow or steal - whatever it takes.  That is reality and that is now.  Acknowledge it or not - agree with it or not - it is what it is.   

    The idea that "someone with a violent criminal past" is walking into a gun store and buying a gun is a straw man argument designed to deflect the conversation away from an uncomfortable truth.   As I pointed out in my previous post the idea that this "problem" is solvable by way of laws, regulations and enforcement of same is laughable.  Laws only affect the law abiding portion of the population.  The rest do as they please. 

    Restricting my rights, in any way or to any degree, does not make you safer.  I am no threat to you unless you threaten me. 
    Arizona" A republic, if you can keep it."

                                                   Benjamin Franklin

    MTK20

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 8044
    • Mind of a philosopher, mouth of a sailor.

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #35 on: February 27, 2020, 03:28:47 am »
    That's the heart of the issue.

    What we are arguing here is the governing of the human will. The will and actions of bad men cannot be governed at all. Only the law abiding can be governed. And if the winds do change and a government becomes tyrannical, then not even the formerly law abiding will allow themselves to be governed. A man cannot have his actions governed without him first giving his consent. That is unless he is governed by force, which then a government that regulates its people by that sole means is neither just nor legitimate. It then becomes the brute that it claims to defend the populace against.
    Texas
    Do we forget that cops were primarily still using 6 Shot Revolvers well through the mid 80's? It wasn't until after 1986 that most departments then relented and went to autos.
    Capacity wasn't really an issue then... and honestly really it's not even an issue now.
    Ray Chapman, used to say that the 125-grain Magnum load’s almost magical stopping power was the only reason to load .357 instead of .38 Special +P ammunition into a fighting revolver chambered for the Magnum round. I agree. - Massad Ayoob

    Paradoxically it is those who strive for self-reliance, who remain vigilant and ready to help others.

    RetroGrouch

    • Senior Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 976

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #36 on: February 27, 2020, 03:45:43 am »
    And the other counter to booksmart's question is "how many people who knowingly fail a NICS check get put in prison?"  I'll give you a hint, there are many more living Congressional Medal of Honor recipients.  The system's data isn't updated, and violators aren't prosecuted.  It doesn't work on any level, it adds to the price of buying a gun, it is a tax on a Civil right, and it is a blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment.
    Arizona

    NukMed

    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 421

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #37 on: February 27, 2020, 08:18:31 am »
    I'm not asking for what hoplophobes are trying to do.  I'm asking you: this reality, this now. How do you keep someone with a violent criminal past from walking into a gun store and buying a gun?

    The short answer is: I'm not.

    How do you know if someone is a violent criminal?  Are you speaking about those who have been convicted of some crime that makes them a prohibited person?  I will assume for the sake of argument that you are not suggesting a "precrime" scenario.  If we are talking solely about people who get into the system, why are nonviolent felons prohibited?  If you are speaking strictly about the violent, why are they on the street?

    For those who are currently considered prohibited person, my answer is the following: Murderers, rapists, pedophiles, and kidnappers should be executed or serve life in prison without parole.  They would no longer be on the board.  Anyone else who serves their sentence should be able to exercise their rights like the rest of us.  This includes the paroled.  Why release them if they are a threat?
    Freedom trumps fear.  Rights trump security.  Free will trumps order.

    booksmart

    • Token Left Leaning Idealist Libertarian
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 6596
    • E. Pluribus Unum.

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #38 on: February 27, 2020, 09:10:17 am »
    Violent criminals do not walk into gun stores to buy guns!

    That is correct. Why? Because there are laws that prevent them from being sold firearms.

    To further the question of whether or not SQLBullet's rights were violated: was he officially detained? Handcuffed? Frisked? Interviewed? Interrogated? Did he have to get a notarized letter from his doctor or significant other that they were fine with him having the gun?  Was he yelled at by protesters walking into the gun show?

    Pretty sure all the answers to those is no.  He has his (nifty, I might add) gun.  His rights are intact.

    But I'm not entirely unsympathetic to his lost time. He should go to the next townhall, recount his experience, then suggest that the county should have a booth at the next gunshow, manned by enough individuals to meet demand and run the background checks themselves. I'm sure they have employees with experience.
    « Last Edit: February 27, 2020, 10:21:51 am by booksmart »

    NukMed

    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 421

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #39 on: February 27, 2020, 11:02:41 am »
    Booksmart, I hear what you are saying.  I just can't bring myself to agree.  A right delayed is a right denied--even if denied for a short period.

    Infringing on my rights due to someone else's fear of what some third party might do is a concept I can never get behind.
    Freedom trumps fear.  Rights trump security.  Free will trumps order.

    booksmart

    • Token Left Leaning Idealist Libertarian
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 6596
    • E. Pluribus Unum.

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #40 on: February 27, 2020, 12:06:16 pm »
    Ah, to suffer the slings and arrows of indignity, living in a modern society...   ;)

    coelacanth

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 10032
    • eccentric orbit

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #41 on: February 27, 2020, 01:26:54 pm »
    That is correct. Why? Because there are laws that prevent them from being sold firearms.

    To further the question of whether or not SQLBullet's rights were violated: was he officially detained? Handcuffed? Frisked? Interviewed? Interrogated? Did he have to get a notarized letter from his doctor or significant other that they were fine with him having the gun?  Was he yelled at by protesters walking into the gun show?

    Pretty sure all the answers to those is no.  He has his (nifty, I might add) gun.  His rights are intact.

    But I'm not entirely unsympathetic to his lost time. He should go to the next townhall, recount his experience, then suggest that the county should have a booth at the next gunshow, manned by enough individuals to meet demand and run the background checks themselves. I'm sure they have employees with experience.
    If there are laws that prevent them from being sold firearms then how do they obtain them?   :hmm   Could it be that the criminal(s) will ignore the law(s) or circumvent them in whatever way proves most effective?  Shocking.   :shocked   Again, regulating people's behavior only works if you can regulate those who need regulating and only then if you have their cooperation - voluntary or forced. 

    Speaking of forced cooperation, the entire second paragraph of your quoted response mentions things that already exist in this country for firearms owners or prospective purchasers despite the clear language of the second amendment to the Constitution.   

    Have you actually been to any "townhalls" lately?   City council meetings?  County supervisor meetings?   Public comment fora for virtually anything?   Theater of the absurd is the most charitable description I can come up with for any of those things - and yes, I have attended them.  They are not the place you go to get your problem(s) solved and nobody should be forced to go, hat in hand, before government bureaucrats to petition for the guarantee of civil rights or effective governance.  You would have SQLBullet waste yet more time and resources to attempt to alleviate a problem he didn't cause in the first place?  And, what is the difference between standing in line at a vendor's table and standing in line at some "booth" - no doubt paid for by your next property tax increase ?     

    I suppose it comes down to this;  If government is the answer what was the question?    :scrutiny

    Arizona" A republic, if you can keep it."

                                                   Benjamin Franklin

    sqlbullet

    • Contributor
    • ****
    • Posts: 1593

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #42 on: February 27, 2020, 02:04:09 pm »
    While I agree that a right delayed is a right denied, I am also cognizant that in a society I accept brief denials of my right in order to accommodate others rights.  A great example of this is the simple traffic light.  At a traffic light I am denied my right to travel, though briefly, so that others can safely cross my path.  We don't think much of this because individually we can see the net benefit to us out ways the brief denial of our right to travel.

    The feeling would not be the same if, say, the law was implemented such that east-west traffic could travel on even hours and north-south on odd hours, with the last 10 minutes of each hour reserved for those who wanted to turn left from the currently allowed direction to the about to be allowed direction.  The simple fact is no one would conform to such a system.

    The problem with universal background checks is that while they sound "common sense", like a traffic light system, they don't make any sense at all when you look at the data.  Most guns used in crime are obtained through means that are either a) already illegal or b) through a legal means that additional background checks would not stop.  The means in "a" are the most common and fall into the following categories:
       Street/Black Market (43.2%)
       Family/friend/straw-purchase (25.3%)
       Found during commission of crime(11.8%)
       Stolen (6.4%)

       Other (5.9%)
       Retail Purchase (9.2%)

       Gun Show (0.8%)

    This would suggest that less than 112 guns used in fatal shootings in 2018 would have been stopped by gun show background checks (using wisqars data of 13,958 Homocide deaths in 2018 and assuming no two people were killed by the same gun.  If they were the number is less.)

    This seems like a pretty slim basis to incur the expense of individuals, dealers and government entities. Especially when you consider that most would just switch to an alternate means.  We can't assume they will just not commit the crime.



    https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf
    Utah

    lesptr

    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 403

    • Offline
    A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #43 on: February 27, 2020, 02:07:47 pm »
    That is correct. Why? Because there are laws that prevent them from being sold firearms.

    To further the question of whether or not SQLBullet's rights were violated: was he officially detained? Handcuffed? Frisked? Interviewed? Interrogated? Did he have to get a notarized letter from his doctor or significant other that they were fine with him having the gun?  Was he yelled at by protesters walking into the gun show?

    Pretty sure all the answers to those is no. 

    No, but he was harassed just to make you and those like you “feel” better. That’s what pisses me off.

    I’ve grown tired of the “can we have a conversation” bs, which means you have to do what “we” think is right.

    I’m tired of this crap and I’m tired of the party of free s___ that keeps doing its best to destroy my country, and I’m tired of having to deal with the morons who vote for them!
    Georgia

    goatroper

    • Contributor
    • ****
    • Posts: 1457

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #44 on: February 27, 2020, 02:09:25 pm »

    To further the question of whether or not SQLBullet's rights were violated: was he officially detained? Handcuffed? Frisked? Interviewed? Interrogated? Did he have to get a notarized letter from his doctor or significant other that they were fine with him having the gun?  Was he yelled at by protesters walking into the gun show?

    Pretty sure all the answers to those is no.


    Wrong.  He was interrogated, via form 4473 and whatever other state/local forms may be in use in his state; and the record of that interrogation will be kept.  Then he had to have what amounts to a letter from his government (which only knows him through whatever has or has not been recorded in its files) giving him permission -- in VA that entails permission from fedgov (FBI) and stategov (state police).  And then he had to give a permission slip to the hall monitors to be able to leave with his gun.

    He has his (nifty, I might add) gun.  His rights are intact infringed.


    FIFY.


    VirginiaGoatroper

    LowKey

    • Senior Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 770

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #45 on: February 27, 2020, 03:18:08 pm »


    I'm sorry, did SQLBullet leave the gunshow with the gun or not? If he did, his rights are intact.
    So then you're going on record that in your opinion Dr. Martin Luther King  Jr. was  entirely wrong when he said, "A right delayed is a right denied"?



    How would you keep people who are federally barred from owning guns from purchasing a gun?

    First thing I'd do is prosecute people who set up straw man sales...starting with former Attorney General Holder, including making him accessory to homicide for every person killed with firearms he facilitated to prohibited possessors.   Have to set an example,  how can we expect the plebs to follow the rules when the "top cop" of the nation didn't?
    Second, I'd prosecute each and every prohibited person who could be proven to have picked up a firearm...starting with all the celebrities with disqualifying offenses who use serialized modern firearms in film.  Again, how can we expect people to follow the rules when we showcase people breaking them? Monkey see, monkey do. As a bonus this should also reduce the length of Awards shows for both the film and music industry.
    Third, when a person with a pre-existing disqualification is arrested while in possession of a firearm I'd charge them under the existing statute...something that very rarely happens currently.   I care very little where they purchased it, I care that they are in possession of it. 
     
    Skip the dream about everybody having the right to own a gun - we do not live in that world.

    Right after you skip the dream about how background checks will stop felons and other bad actors from obtaining firearms with relative ease.
    Deal with this reality, this now. How do you keep someone with a violent criminal past from walking into a gun store and buying a gun?
    You keep them incarcerated until they are no longer a threat to the public.   That also helps prevent them from buying one on the black market, stealing them, or making a firearm themselves...all much more common ways that people with criminal pasts obtain firearms in comparison to buying a gun at a brick and mortar store.


    Now, I'll repeat the question I asked you which you avoided. I'll even expand upon it.

    Can we institute universal background checks for voting?
    After all, felons and non-US Citizens are not allowed to vote in Federal elections.
    Isn't it worth an hour of your life to ensure that elections  are  legitimate and that votes are not being illegally cast by non-citizens? Russian Agents, for example.    :D
    Or illegal aliens, if you're prone to considering something so unfeasible and unlikely. :coffee
    Isn't it worth an hour of your life to ensure that elections  are  legitimate?

    I mean the argument against requiring verified ID proving that you're a US Citizen before you can vote on the grounds that it's   an unfair burden on poor and minorities due to the expense of obtaining such ID or that  such a requirement would have a chilling effect on people in those demographics exercising their right of franchise is obviously ridiculous.   The requirement to procure such ID and produce it before each and every purchase of a firearm from an FFL, also the exercise of a right protected by our Constitution, doesn't produce such a burden or chilling effect...right? :coffee

    lesptr

    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 403

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #46 on: February 27, 2020, 03:31:50 pm »
    @LowKey 

    We need a like button.

    Georgia

    coelacanth

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 10032
    • eccentric orbit

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #47 on: February 27, 2020, 05:58:45 pm »
    I'm just glad we can all still gather around and help poor booksmart through these rough patches.   Bless his heart.    :cool
    Arizona" A republic, if you can keep it."

                                                   Benjamin Franklin

    booksmart

    • Token Left Leaning Idealist Libertarian
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 6596
    • E. Pluribus Unum.

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #48 on: February 27, 2020, 10:58:41 pm »
    *cracks knuckles*

    From the top... hit it!

    Coelecanth - And I point out (again) that not all people that are barred from possessing a firearm are career criminals. Domestic abusers (male and female).  Felony DUI convictions.  There are lots of felonies that don't require a life of crime to commit. Some of these are people who otherwise wouldn't dream of breaking the law.  Some of them, sure, are not violent and I don't think would necessarily need to be on a no-sale list.

    Some, however, most certainly would.

    RE: townhalls.  For better or worse, we do live in a representative democratic republic, and governance is a participatory sport. Some times, you gotta stand up and open your mouth.

    SQLBullet - I'm about to freak y'all out: If you'd shown me the DOJ report earlier, this would have been a much shorter conversation (I will even go so far as to share it on Facebook). HOWEVER: an FFL licensed dealer, selling at a gun show, should still run a background check, as they are still bound by the FFL regulations.  If they were at their shop, they'd have to run one. Why should the location make a difference?

    BTW, there's been a spike in gun homicides over the last few years - we're up to around 15k, as of 2018.  Food for thought.

    Goatroper - we've all filled out a form 4473, at one time or another.  As things go, it's relatively painless.  Certainly easier (and less painful) than doing my taxes.

    LowKey - I'm saying that Dr. King might have a slightly different view on the matter, were you able to ask him now.

    I assert again that the act of voting does not result in bloodshed - it's a strawman argument.

    lesptr

    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 403

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #49 on: February 27, 2020, 11:18:42 pm »
    Booksmart

    If a FFL is selling at a gun show, he/she is already required by law to conduct a sale exactly the same way he/she would do so in their shop. The “gun show loop” hole is made up bs by the people that want to strip us of our rights.

    Ann Coulter is right. Liberalism IS a disease.


    Georgia

    Help support WeTheArmed.com by visiting our sponsors.