Who here supports "background" checks?

[RHarris]

Who here supports background checks? Perhaps some believe since you haven't done anything "wrong" it's not a big deal. Or perhaps some are gullible enough to feel okay with having to go through a little trouble to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children.

Well what do you think about traveling for an hour to a shop for a good deal you came across and then find out you have been "delayed" on the NICS check and given no reason for it? You have no criminal history of any kind, you're just told to wait or come back later, not knowing when or if it will be approved. Or maybe you find a spectactular deal on something in another city but can't purchase it because you have to get a permit from your county of residence that might be a hundred miles away and wait a week. Returning on a later date would be an option, but you might have to spend $50 on fuel for the exta trip.

The fact is, background checks both discourage and prevent the "law abiding citizen" from obtaining firearms.

If you support background checks, why? And if so, how can you support the fact that the rest of us are penalized when we have done nothing wrong. And what does a background check, permit to purchase, or any other silly infringement accomplish if a person already has firearms anyway?

Perhaps we need background checks for gasoline and matches to prevent arson. After all, the United States has a higer arson rate that the rest of the devoloped world.

[Battler]

Even most gunowners buy into the background check.

Saps. . . .

[blades67]

The NICS check is a reality, whining about it is a waste of time. Either start working to change things or deal with it. If you don't like State mandated purchase permits, start a petition drive to get the issue on the ballot. If that's too much trouble, deal with the permit.

[John/az2]

for our elected things (politicians) and the hope-to-be-elected things (candidates).

"How well did they follow their oath of office?"

&

"Should they be re-elected based on how well they followed their oath?"

Fortunately, it's already in place.

Unfortunately, it can be subverted by a "voice" vote.

Unfortunately, it's use is not required before voting.

[Doc Hudson]

If we don't check the background, our bullets might cause unintended damage. Always check your background before shooting.

Any other sort of background checking is a violation of my privacy and is nor Constitutional.

Doc Hudson

[RHarris]

"The NICS check is a reality, whining about it is a waste of time. Either start working to change things or deal with it. If you don't like State mandated purchase permits, start a petition drive to get the issue on the ballot. If that's too much trouble, deal with the permit."

Yes, the NICS is a reality. So it's whining to ask who supports it and why? Is it whining when Reps, Senators, and other elected or non-elected are called, written, emailed, or even met with personally? Or might that be considered "working to change"? Sorry, but I can't deal with it.

The point is, too many gunowners accept it and don't have a problem with it. Or perhaps haven't experienced the current systems flaws and realize how they can be affected. Perhaps many are the types that think they have nothing to worry about since they don't have "guns like that". My guess is many of those are the same who won't play any part in "working to change".

Again, who supports it and why?

[deanf]

The NICS check is a reality, whining about it is a waste of time. Either start working to change things or deal with it. If you don't like State mandated purchase permits, start a petition drive to get the issue on the ballot. If that's too much trouble, deal with the permit.

With due respect:

It's not an either/or situation, as you suggest. You can lobby for change and obey the law at the same time. If you don't like to read about people's hassles with the various background check and permitting schemes in this country, you've come to the wrong place.

And just because he's complaining about it doesn't mean he's not doing anything about it.

Background checks? Absolutely NO. The government has no authority to detain my purchase of a lawful product for any reason.

[HandloaderJohn]

NO

[Dennis]

It's a straight-forward question, so sheath your Blades.

I might be able to support background checks:
- IF the only names kept in the government data base were of people NOT permitted to own firearms (eg people ruled mentally incompetent in a court of law; incarcerated felons, etc.);
- IF NO RECORD of firearms transactions were kept;
- and IF a return from NICS took longer than a credit card check, the assumption would be "no problem."

The current system is firearms registration (illegal) and registration of firearms owners (immoral and dangerous to our Liberty).

[Dead]

The only background check I would support would be "Turning around and looking at the ground that was behind me". Other than that NO, criminals dont have to go through them, legally or otherwise.

[Orion_VTOL]

I have gone through this systems to buy a firearm. Three actually. However, I will not buy another firearm through a dealer anymore. I will either get from a private individual, or not at all. Currently I have found two rifles that I wanted that were from private sale. For me, that's they way I will go. Now, if NICS ACTUALLY did keep guns out of the hands of criminals, then I'd be all for it. But most criminals, who know they have a record, aren't going to go into a gun shop when he/she knows that an NICS will be required. THAT is the flaw of the NICS. (Unless you have a real stupid criminal)

[Halffast]

When a felon walks into a gun shop and tries to buy a gun he has committed 3 feloneis (IIRC). In talking with 5 or 6 different dealers, only one told me that ONE declined purchaser was investigated. That is one out of who knows how many. So, if they are not going to arrest these felons and prosecute them, what good is NICS. Oh, I forgot.....When a felon is turned down in a gun shop, he forgets about wanting a gun and returns to the straight and narrow. He doesn't buy one illegally or steal one. How stupid of me to think that the Brady law doesn't stop crime.

David

[thumbtack]

Once, I receive my CCW I will not have to worry about the NICS.

[Quartus]

Orion, you wrote, "Now, if NICS ACTUALLY did keep guns out of the hands of criminals, then I'd be all for it."

I couldn't disagree more, sir. The efficacy of the program is irrelevant to it's constitutionality or morality. The current income tax system is very effective at extracting money from the CoA. It's still wrong.

Even if the NIC were 100% effective at keeping bad guys from getting guns, it would still be wrong on (at least) two counts.

1: It presumes guilt until proven innocent.

2: It puts the government in the position of granting (or not) permission for a citizen to exercise a Constitutional right.

3: (Hey, I said "at least two!") The Constitution does not permit of denying RKBA to any citizen. Where'd we get the idea that it's okay to tell soeone they can't own a gun because they've, in the past, been convicted of a crime?

Y'all need to think that last one over very carefully. See point 1.

[Charmedlyfe]

I don't mind instant checks. I DO mind the fact that they intentionally delay people. The technology is there for the checks to be truly instant.

[Dennis]

A mandatory check involves obtaining permission.
Permission can be delayed, withheld, or denied.
Then a sale to a good and honest citizen can not occur.
Your Right to Keep and Bear Arms has been infringed.
That is unconstitutional, immoral, and a violation of human rights.

IF any "list" must be maintained by the government, only those who have lost their RKBA should be listed.

Anything more than that is registration - which even our elitist Congress admits is illegal/unconstitutional.

[Bogie]

Personally, I think that the truly instant check isn't necessarily a bad thing. We don't want criminals wandering in to Joe's Gun Shack and buying stuff. Basically, there should be a relatively simple list, and if you're on it, you don't get a gun. Sorta like the list of bad check passers that you'll see posted in some stores.

It's when they delay folks for no reason that it doesn't work...

[Elizabeth Petersen]

I hope you're not in Utah.

Turns out, BCI (Bureau of Criminial Identification) runs background checks on CCW holders EVERY DAY.

Every day, a background check gets run on me. I am seriously considering surrendering my CCW and just go back to (ahem) carrying without one in order to protect myself from such a blatant violation of my privacy. Oh, and don't even get me started on what a waste of money that is.

The very idea that I'm getting the electronic/governmental version of an anal probe everyday just doesn't sit well with me.

On that note, I support IN THEORY the NICS checks only under similar circumstances to those that Dennis put forth. Now since I know there is no way that's gonna happen anytime soon (the theoretical version) I guess I would have to say that no, I do not support background checks as they are currently done.

[KAM_Indianapolis]

Do I support the NIC system?

Yes. I do think that it is slowing the sales of firearms to felons. I also think that the current system is flawed if it is rejecting or delaying the purchases for non-felons. It certainly can be improved.

Do you support the un-fetterd access to firearms by felons?

Without the NIC system isn't that what would happen. Any punk with a criminal record could walk into your local gun shop and pick up a new piece. I know, most illegal guns are obtained through theft. I don't see how people are making the connection between checking a list to make sure you are not on it, and begging permission from the government to buy a gun.

Have I ever had a problem with it?

No, here in Indiana my CCW by-passes the NIC check. And just what electronic anal probe do they perform on you, Elizabeth? Cross checking CCW holders to make sure they haven't been arrested for any crimes would be my guess. Is that an intrusion on your privacy?

I have to agree with Denis on this. There is nowhere in the constitution that denies a Felon his right to keep and bear arms. The NICS does put the government in the business of "approving" or "granting" permission for the free exercise of your rights. That is blatantly unconstitutional. Read the constitution!

[Elizabeth Petersen]

KAM...

the way it used to be, if a CCW holder committed a crime, BCI was promptly notified and the license was revoked. Only took a matter of days.

Now they check everyday. Seems redundant and a waste of money to me, and somewhat intrusive. But perhaps I am just paranoid? Something a bit bothersome about knowing that I'm being run for wants and warrants every day. CCW holders are the only people in Utah who are run every day. Not police officers, EMS personnel, security guards, politicians, FFL holders, etc. Just CCW holders. Hmmmm...seems rather biased to me.

[John/az2]

KAM,

The CCW is a permission slip from the government to excercise your RIGHT to carry concealed, thus relegating that RIGHT to a PRIVILEDGE.

I have no problem with felons owning weapons if they have served their time for the act. I believe that there are very few "felonies" that deserve a life-time revocation of a right, and frankly, if they have commited those types of felonies, they should not be out in public anyway.

[Dave R]

FWIW, one time, while waiting patiently for a NICS approval, I asked the gun shop owner if any transactions had been disallowed. He said about half-dozen a year. He said the NICS system was good for reminding people they had outstanding traffic tickets. Or educating them that they lose the right to KBA if a significant other has a restraining order against them. That's it.

Well, I guess the real reason is to register guns, isn't it?

So no, I do not support it. It does not keep firearms away from criminals. It does enable de-facto gun registration.

[Christopher II]

I don't support any form of gun control, and I do mean ANY.

I've been reading some L. Neil Smith lately, and I think that he said it best.

"Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission."

No argument here.

Later,
Chris

[Jeff OTMG]

I have a problem with being assumed guilty until I am checked and found to be innocent. However, if the background check can be run in less than 5 mins and return a definitive answer I do not have a problem with it as it is not intrusive. I do not agree with the delays or approves that take 2 or 3 days. As was stated, some individuals do not have the right to keep and bear arms, convicted felons and it has been upheld by the Supreme Court as a limitation, and provided the check is non-intrusive I have no objection to it. For a govt entity to accumulate the information on legal purchases is intrusive, to assume guilt because the check cannot be completed is intrusive, for the check to take 20 mins is intrusive, to provide information contained on a 4473 that will be kept by someone you may not know is intrusive. To plop down cash and ID for a gun and wait 5 mins for a background check is not intrusive. The records are what I object to. I would like to see a box on the drivers licenses of every state that says, "QUALIFIES FOR FIREARMS OWNERSHIP". The box is only checked if you request it. If your box is checked you can buy a gun anywhere in the country, the background check being completed in advance by your state of residence. If you are an anti-gunner you would not have your box checked and would look like a criminal to anyone that you provided ID to when you wrote a check. Of course some people disagree with all of the GCA '68, even the part requiring a unique seral number be put on every firearm, I agree with that.