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.

This thread makes me proud to be a member of this forum.      

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.   

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.    

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

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.

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!

 

Violent criminals do not walk into gun stores to buy guns!

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.

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?

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.

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?      Could it be that the criminal(s) will ignore the law(s) or circumvent them in whatever way proves most effective?  Shocking.      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?   

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!

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.   
Or illegal aliens, if you're prone to considering something so unfeasible and unlikely.
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?

I'm just glad we can all still gather around and help poor booksmart through these rough patches.   Bless his heart.   

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.