I have been hearing and reading a lot about background checks lately. I may have missed it somewhere but I have a couple of questions. As I understand it is illegal for certain groups of people to possess a gun or even to attempt to purchase one or handle one. I wonder how many people are prosecuted under the already existing system? And if not 100% of rejected buyers, why not?
I also wonder how if some one is considered enough of a danger to society that they are not allowed to have a gun, they are allowed out on the streets? If they might commit a crime with a gun, are we not concerned they might hurt some one with something other then a gun? If they might use a gun to rob a little old lady, why do we think they won't use a screwdriver or baseball bat or any of 100s of different things to commit a crime. If we think they are dangerous, why don't we lock them up? Is the fact that our judicial and mental health systems are failing a reason that I have to be considered guilty until proven innocent?

Problem is that not all criminals are dangerous. Bernie Madoff wasnt a killer or rapist or armed robber but he is a criminal who once out will not be aloud to own guns. Or the guy who commits vehicular homicide while drunk. Otherwise a normal person but now a criminal. So should they be in prison for life? Reason for letting them out but not allowing them to own guns is because a felony is a felony regardless of how non violent or accidental the crime was.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Here is a link to Joe Biden saying they don't have time to prosecute people that lie on the federal 4473 form... many of the rejects were convicted felon and several thousand were fugitives, data from 2010.

Joe Biden: ‘We Don’t Have Time To Prosecute Everybody Who Lies’ On Background Checks

__________________
Old paratrooper in NC

I don't know how you can lie on a background form. In NJ you must be fingerprinted and the prints are sent to the NJ State police and they know everything about your criminal history if you have one. There's no prosecution they just deny the permit, period end of story and you just spent about 100 bucks applying and getting printed for nothing.

__________________
Back to back World War Champs.

Even though they are breaking Federal law , they are rarely prosecuted by the Feds. Instead , the Feds defer to the States. Some states can't afford to or don't want to prosecute them either , so harsh mandatory sentences are plea bargained away to save taxpayers money.

PA has started to fully prosecute those criminals who try to buy. Especially after an officer was recently killed by a fugitive who got the guns via a straw purchaser.

Like we keep saying , there's enough laws. They're just not enforced.

No fingertips in Pa. Whole process takes 5min

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

I read a statistic that says on an average 11 teenagers are killed in the U.S. every day because of texting and driving. That's over 4000 a year. I think maybe a background check for cell phones would actually save more lives.

Do some research on the Lautenberg Amendment (1996). Many people, including military members, and police officers lost their jobs for a misdemeanor offense. Some of those occurred 10, 20, or more years before this act became law. Not sure how fair that is, but so far, no attempt to overturn it has gone beyond a committee. It seems unfair how a single misdemeanor can permanently remove a person's RKBA, while others with felony convictions can have that right restored.

or have obama ban them

__________________
SWCA#2208
KK4EMO

If I'm not mistaken, felons also loose the right to vote and to serve on a jury.

If there is anyone who knows about lying, it would be Joe Biden.

It seems to me that I have read that a prohibited person cannot be prosecuted for failing to answer the questions truthfully because to do so would be a form of self-incrimination.

I can't site a source for it, but it seems I have read it. And it was stated as a court ruling, not some writers opinion.

__________________
John 3:16 .

I can't imagine any court ruling that providing an answer that was knowingly false was permissible; that would be some form of perjury. Instead, a person would have to cite the 5th Amendment.

I can't imagine any court ruling it was a defense to prosecution if someone lied (or refused to answer truthfully) on an official, government form so they could gain a benefit (in this case, getting approved to buy a gun that they were legally not entitled to buy or own.)

Maybe off-topic, but be honest: How many of you 100 percent of the time obey traffic laws? Everyday on the road I see someone speeding, tailgaiting, not yielding, not stopping fully at a STOP sign, illegally passing, texting or using cellphones while driving, seatbelts not fastened, etc, etc. Maybe the analogy is not apt but the fact is that virtually every motorist out there is breaking the law, usually with impunity. There's a certain hypocrisy in pointing fingers at "criminals" while insisting that one is "lawbiding." The line is awfully thing at times. And, yes, in 50 years of driving I've broken a few. Mea culpa.

My driving skills are just about flawless it's everybody else on the road that's the problem.