Someone educate me on background checks

C

ColumbusJBR

Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
404
Reaction score
908
Location
Columbus, OH
Ok gang I swear I'm not trying to troll the forum, I'm here because there are things I really don't know.

First, lets be clear. I am a gun owner. I have been a recreational shooter for roughly a decade. I am a second ammendment supporter. But I haven't been able to wrap my head around this question:

Why do most 2nd ammendment supporters seem to be so against universal background checks? (at least thats the feeling I get)

I've heard the argument that it won't do anything to prevent criminals from getting guns, as criminals don't buy guns legally. Certainly true to an extent, but what is the harm in making it a little harder to obtain a gun legally? Surely not everyone believes that a criminal has NEVER attempted to and successfully bought a gun legally, knowing that there is no background check in place.

I understand that law abiding, good citizens should be allowed to purchase a weapon to protect themselves/ their families with a reasonably small delay. I include myelf in that group. But I seriously don't see the harm in having to go through a background check to obtain that. What is the thought process against it? Do people against background checks just not want any possible delay in getting their gun? Do they believe that the govt has no business knowing what they're purchasing? Or is the thought process that instituting background checks would just be the beginning of future, further restrictions, aka "If you give a mouse a cookie, he's gonna want a glass of milk"?

Again, I'm not trying to start a flame war. I truly am curious. I'm sure there are some aspects or arguments I haven't thought of. So, ladies and gentlemen, please educate me.

Thanks!
 
Register to hide this ad
I'm a Nub on here, but I'll tell ya why I don't care for the notion........
1.) I feel it's a precursor to gun registration. Everything you do nowdays is put in a National Database. Mossouri and another State were caught giving all of their Info on gun purchases to the Feds. Do you really think they will do nothing with that information?
2.) All of the Gun Shops I know of charge for Background Checks. $45 and up, not to mention the extra time involved in taking "ANY" Purchase to a Dealer to do the same.
3.) I think I read on here that 37 thousand people in a period of 2 years LIED on their Forms to purchase Guns. But only a 4 or 5 were ever prosecuted for falsifying said Govt. Forms. AND, "Whatshisname" testified before Congress that the Department did not have the funds to prosecute those who broke the Law , so why on earth do we need MORE Lib-Tard laws when they do not even enforce the Laws on the Books Now?

My opinion only, your mileage may vary.
 
I have to agree with KdF about all of that. Another thing I believe I saw in S. 374 (Universal background checks) is that the attorney general could set the price of a transfer. Fun little piece of information is about the NFA items. The price is, and always has been $200 for a tax stamp. When they set that $200 was an amount pretty much no one could afford. It effectively made NFA items unbuyable for most people. What if they set the price on a background check ridiculously high? Also, it's worded in such an ambiguous way that you could end up in jail just for teaching a friend to shoot with your gun.
 
The only problem I have with universal background checks is that, to my understanding, the only way to enforce a background check on all private sales is to have a registry of all privately owned guns. There's really no way to "check" the sales without knowledge of what's being sold.
To quote a blog: "you can't have a list of my firearms because f*** you, that's why."
 
Just one aspect of background checks involves the logistics. Even assuming we had a "national registry" can any of us imagine the confusion surrounding this, trying to register 300 plus million guns? A common way people obtain guns is when they are passed down through families, father to son/daughter, as an example. Would they have to go through the registry? What about guns that are lost, or stolen? Age restrictions? And who would enforce these regulations? LE cannot begin to deal with drug dealers, or drunk drivers, or sex offenders, etc. Congress is already cutting funds to LE (and everyone else). There's nothing that makes people more cynical than to pass a law that isn't respected or fairly enforced. People supporting this regulation make it sound simple, background checks for everyone. In reality they would create a bureaucratic nightmare, full of pitfalls and unlikely the have any real impact on the problem.
 
I live in CA and for as long as I can remember there have been background checks and a waiting period. I have no problem with either. My 10-day will be up on Friday and I'll be picking up my M&P 9c. For me it's like waiting for Christmas morning.

I'd much rather have these sorts of restrictions then more sever ones like banning guns, magazines and ammo. Even the NRA realizes we have to be more accommodating to government efforts to curb gun violence.
 
hi Brien....we need to "Curb Criminal Violence" I have owned hundreds of firearms....not one of them is Violent. No disrespect....but our leader uses the term gun violence when its the criminal that is violent. I apologize if this offends you in any way...its not ment to.
 
I think this is another issue that is different in all states. In Iowa, where I live, if you buy from a dealer you have to have a permit to purchase. If you have a carry permit, that serves as the purchase permit too. To get these requires going into the Sheriffs office, filling out a questionnaire, and they do a background check on you. Takes about a week to complete for the purchase permit. It is then good for 5 years, and costs $50. When you buy a gun you present your permit to the dealer,and you are approved. They don't call the FBI or anything. It works very well, and I don't have a problem with it.

In Iowa it is legal to sell a gun face-to-face. I have heard that the seller is required by law to know the buyer is not barred. I'm not sure if they have to have a purchase permit. I don't care because I rarely sell a gun. The question I have is if this law passes, what are people going to do when they want to sell a gun to a friend? Will they have to call the FBI for a NICS check, and how do they do that?

All of these things need to be answered before anything passes. I'll be watching.
Jim
 
So another jerk planned to shoot up a school in Florida. Fortunately he was stopped and saved the tax payers some money but he was found with explosives.
I think we need to have explosive registration and background checks before being able to purchase explosives.
That should solve everything.

NJ has had background checks and handgun registration for a long time, it's a little bit of a pain but not really a big deal. Nobody knows the status of my guns after the purchase. All they know is a once purchased them.
 
Who will pay for the Background Check?

Who will pay for the Background Check?

Government Cost: More checks will likely require more personnel answering the phones for required NICS checks.

Individual Cost: Currently most dealers (FFL holders) CHARGE an individual a fee for transfers that are not sales from his shop. Typical this charge is usually $25. This would be to handle a transfer for an individual to another, or involving transfer form an out-of-state FFL.

Ten minutes of filing out a form and calling in for the NICS background check for $25 would seem to be a profit center for dealers.

Will NICS allow individuals to call in for a FREE check?
 
In Washington State a CPL (concealed Pistol License) allows you to bypass the three-day waiting period for handguns - however a call to NCIS still is required. Every time I buy a handgun I need to wait for the FFL to talk with a supervisor. It turns out because I have a very high level government security clearance there is some sorta fly in the ointment. Others with similar high security clearance history in other states have reported similar FUBARS.

Don't be fooled into believing there is not already a universal database. We certainly do not need, or deserve any more "help" from Big Brother.
 
Background checks are de facto gun registration.

Every background request to the government instantly identifies you as a person getting a gun. Now, the government knows you have one, or more. New regulations would also tell them the make, model and caliber.

While federal law says records must be destroyed after the check, in reality, those records last forever. They are NEVER destroyed. They are on the daily backup tapes and are archived for eternity.

FFL must keep their Firearms Transaction Record, or Form 4473 records for 20 years! If the government isn't keeping a record, they know who is.

So far, private sales are not recorded and are still private.
 
I have 6 guns currently, and only 2 of them had any sort or background check involved. Gotta love Arizona. Buying and selling to/from a private party is 1000000% legal.

I am also an Arizona CCW holder. So while I still have to fill out the ATF paperwork, no background check needed for me.
 
I'm not for ANY new gun laws, but this, to me, is the least objectionable.

Personally, I don't think it will lead to confiscation. As far as I know, if they do the check, it is just a basic "can this person legally buy a gun" check. I wouldn't think it would say "Joe Smith is buying a 5" M27-2 Smith & Wesson revolver".

If our wonderful government wants to know who owns guns it's pretty easy to figure out. If you have a hunting license, or a purchase permit or a carry permit, you're a gun owner. And I'm sure they monitor sites like this, which is why I want to take this opportunity to clearly state "I have the GREATEST respect for our elected officials,and wish them only the best!!!" Especially my FAVORITE agency....the IRS.:D

Whew, I feel better.
Jim
 
Brien said:
I'd much rather have these sorts of restrictions then more sever ones like banning guns, magazines and ammo. Even the NRA realizes we have to be more accommodating to government efforts to curb gun violence.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what CA keeps trying to do. In addition to all sales going through an FFL, they require registration for handguns, sales of new firearms are restricted to the list of "approved" models, there is a 10 round magazine cap, the CA AWB, and CA passed a law banning internet ammo sales and requiring fingerprinting for ammo sales in-state (this one was overturned by the CA Supreme Court). Don't think for a second that many CA legislators aren't trying to take away your rights a little at a time.

Chubbs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

robertrwalsh
CA AMMO BACKGROUND CHECK STRUCK DOWN
Replies
7
Views
349
James K
James K
D
In State Shipping Question?
Replies
3
Views
320
Goldstar225
G
S
FFL Responsibilities
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Rat458
R
D
Jammed up Smith Revolver.....
2 3
Replies
48
Views
4K
kbm6893
K
TXBryan
Mexico sues U.S. gunmakers
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Oldsalt66
Oldsalt66

Latest posts

Back
Top