SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Page 1 of 212>>

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Question.  (Hand raised), Background checks< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
Squaretop Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1297
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: May 06 2013, 12:45 pm  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

We talk about stricter background checks for those purchasing guns.  I certainly agree that background checks are a good idea.  My friends in Texas laugh that us folks from Illinois have to have even a FOID card.  But my question is this:  What is a background check?  Just a police record?   Domestic violence?   DUI's?  Medical records?   Hospital records?  I guess I'm asking how far does it go, and how much does it cost?  The problem is the gang bangers find a girl/girlfriend that can pass the background check and buy a gun.  So the bad guys end up with the guns anyway.  But I would like an answer to my question.  Thanks.

--------------
You can't buy time or memories.
"How'd I get involved".
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
WalksWithBlackflies Search for posts by this member.
Resident Eco-Freak Bootlicker
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 9830
Joined: Jun. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: May 06 2013, 12:56 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Congress will have to first pass a bill so that you can find out what is in it.

--------------
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. - Lao Tzu
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 3
Marmotstew Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 9302
Joined: May 2006
PostIcon Posted on: May 06 2013, 1:06 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

It's actually a way for the government to tax more and infringe on our god given rights. But one thing they check is probably if you've ever killed anybody with a gun.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 42737
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: May 06 2013, 1:12 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/nics

"Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms or explosives. Before ringing up the sale, cashiers call in a check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isn’t otherwise ineligible to make a purchase. More than 100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000 denials.

NICS is located at the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division in Clarksburg, West Virginia. It provides full service to FFLs in 30 states, five U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. Upon completion of the required Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Form 4473, FFLs contact the NICS Section via a toll-free telephone number or electronically on the Internet through the NICS E-Check System to request a background check with the descriptive information provided on the ATF Form 4473. NICS is customarily available 17 hours a day, seven days a week, including holidays (except for Christmas)...."
Online
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 5
Marmotstew Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 9302
Joined: May 2006
PostIcon Posted on: May 06 2013, 1:16 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

They also check to see if you've eaten lots of hummus recently.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
TehipiteTom Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5713
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: May 06 2013, 1:26 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Squaretop @ May 06 2013, 9:45 am)
QUOTE
We talk about stricter background checks for those purchasing guns.  I certainly agree that background checks are a good idea.  My friends in Texas laugh that us folks from Illinois have to have even a FOID card.  But my question is this:  What is a background check?  Just a police record?   Domestic violence?   DUI's?  Medical records?   Hospital records?  I guess I'm asking how far does it go, and how much does it cost?  

I agree with you on this much: the devil is, as always, in the details. So here are my own thoughts (not necessarily what's in the Manchin-Toomey bill).

I would definitely include domestic violence as a red flag--in fact, that's probably the single most important component in background checks, if the goal is to save lives. (In my ideal version, not only would a domestic abuser not be allowed to buy a gun, but the background check would also include an automatic notice to any complainant that the person who abused them was trying to buy a gun.)

I would also include DUIs as a red flag. I don't know that a single DUI should be disqualifying, but anyone with multiple DUIs is someone who absolutely cannot be trusted with a gun.

QUOTE
The problem is the gang bangers find a girl/girlfriend that can pass the background check and buy a gun.  So the bad guys end up with the guns anyway.  

That's why, in addition to background checks, we need to increase penalties for straw purchasers. But genuinely universal background checks are key to that effort. Currently, it can be hard to prove that straw purchasers knew they were buying guns for someone who wasn't supposed to have them.

The way to solve that problem is to require background checks for all private sales. Then it's simpler: either you did a background check (and knew), or you didn't (and broke the law, and should be held accountable for the damage caused).


--------------
Conservatives are the whiniest whiners in the wholy whiny history of whiny-ass whinerdom.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 7
wwwest Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6286
Joined: Dec. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: May 06 2013, 3:03 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Background checks are just one, fairly ineffective, step toward a comprehensive, ongoing effort to make guns safer in the hands of all shooters.

We need to take a broadbased approach wherein every improvement that can have a practical effect in making guns safer is taken, while at the same time leaving the legitimate uses of guns for private purposes as free as possible.

Very much the way that cars and trucks have been made much safer over the past 30 years, but at the same time made more comfortable, more reliable and easily accessable to the legal, registered owners.


--------------
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

- John Kenneth Galbraith
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 8
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 42737
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: May 06 2013, 4:23 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Cars and trucks have been made "safer" for the user while there's little to zero issue with user safety in relation to firearms. Granted there have been the occassional slide cracks and failures of the Berretta 92 when fired many. many thousands of times (usually way above 5,000) but that's not the same sort of "safety" your discussing is it?

"Car safety" for pedestrians (the people car users hit with their cars)?
Online
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
Lamebeaver Search for posts by this member.
trail? I don't need no stinkin trail!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 18990
Joined: Aug. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: May 06 2013, 7:05 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

The government knows what's best for us.  We should just trust them to do what's right.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8206
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: May 06 2013, 9:39 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Lamebeaver @ May 06 2013, 4:05 pm)
QUOTE
The government knows what's best for us.  We should just trust them to do what's right.

No, we should let everyone (corporations and individuals) do what ever they hell they want and be free from any oversight or regulation whatsoever.

Then everything would be just dandy.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 11
dayhiker9 Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5755
Joined: Apr. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: May 07 2013, 12:11 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

So , assuming you are ok with currently going into a legit gun show and getting a background check, why do you have a problem with extending this to all sales (ie gun shows).

--------------
" before you make assertions about numbers, look at the numbers."   Krugman
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6812
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: May 07 2013, 6:51 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

All sellers dealing in bulk firearms (more than 5 for sale at any given time) and even if so-called "private sellers" and/or selling at a gun show to the general public (i.e. people unknown to the seller), should be required to have an FFL and perform background checks.

--------------
If you are free to be a Liberal- Thank a person with a gun.

Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 13
TehipiteTom Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5713
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: May 07 2013, 11:02 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montanalonewolf @ May 07 2013, 3:51 am)
QUOTE
All sellers dealing in bulk firearms (more than 5 for sale at any given time) and even if so-called "private sellers" and/or selling at a gun show to the general public (i.e. people unknown to the seller), should be required to have an FFL and perform background checks.

Why no background checks for private sales? That doesn't make any sense.

--------------
Conservatives are the whiniest whiners in the wholy whiny history of whiny-ass whinerdom.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 14
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6866
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: May 07 2013, 12:03 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(TehipiteTom @ May 07 2013, 11:02 am)
QUOTE

(Montanalonewolf @ May 07 2013, 3:51 am)
QUOTE
All sellers dealing in bulk firearms (more than 5 for sale at any given time) and even if so-called "private sellers" and/or selling at a gun show to the general public (i.e. people unknown to the seller), should be required to have an FFL and perform background checks.

Why no background checks for private sales? That doesn't make any sense.

In theory, private individuals know each other and/or a background check is moot.  For example, when my son turned 16 I bought  him his first gun.  I filled out all the paperwork for the background check and gave him the gun as a gift.  That was not a straw purchase violation.  And it would have been ridiculous to have my son fill out the background information paperwork when I transferred the gun to him.  

In like fashion I bought a gun from a personal friend of mine.  He'd had it for years and was buying a new gun so he no longer needed the old one.  That gun became my wife's gun.  No background checks on any of those transfers.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 15
BillBab Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5106
Joined: Sep. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: May 07 2013, 1:42 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ May 06 2013, 4:23 pm)
QUOTE
Cars and trucks have been made "safer" for the user while there's little to zero issue with user safety in relation to firearms. Granted there have been the occassional slide cracks and failures of the Berretta 92 when fired many. many thousands of times (usually way above 5,000) but that's not the same sort of "safety" your discussing is it?

"Car safety" for pedestrians (the people car users hit with their cars)?

A good example of that would be pedestrian bumpers

Which most car makers have resisted


--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."

Thomas Sowell
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8206
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: May 07 2013, 1:54 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(KenV @ May 07 2013, 9:03 am)
QUOTE

(TehipiteTom @ May 07 2013, 11:02 am)
QUOTE

(Montanalonewolf @ May 07 2013, 3:51 am)
QUOTE
All sellers dealing in bulk firearms (more than 5 for sale at any given time) and even if so-called "private sellers" and/or selling at a gun show to the general public (i.e. people unknown to the seller), should be required to have an FFL and perform background checks.

Why no background checks for private sales? That doesn't make any sense.

In theory, private individuals know each other and/or a background check is moot.

I disagree.

If a simple background check made it obvious whether an individual was legally eligible to own a firearm, then the seller would know.  If the seller knowingly went through with a sale/transfer to an ineligible buyer, then the seller would be subject to the legal consequences and liabilities for doing so.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 17
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6866
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: May 07 2013, 2:16 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(hbfa @ May 07 2013, 1:54 pm)
QUOTE
If a simple background check made it obvious whether an individual was legally eligible to own a firearm, then the seller would know.

In some cases, the "seller" DOES know without a background check.  I knew that my son and my wife were both legally eligible to own a firearm.  The friend who sold me his gun  knew that I was legally eligible to own a firearm  All those transfers were made legally and without a background check.   And I believe appropriately so.  And I believe it should stay that way.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 18
wwwest Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6286
Joined: Dec. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: May 07 2013, 3:47 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Which leaves you in opposition to the opinion of 80-90 % of Americans, including me.

--------------
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

- John Kenneth Galbraith
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 19
dayhiker9 Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5755
Joined: Apr. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: May 07 2013, 4:59 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I looked at the form the paper work doesn't seem that great for a lethal weapon

http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

and the check could be done by a gunshop etc. for a small fee, or maybe even free.

If the current law worked so only family etc., used the loophole it might be ok.  It should be changed so as KenV puts it that the seller "KNOWS" the buyer would pass a check.  

Not sure what the penalty or liability should be if the seller is wrong.  Probably that would be enough for most to go ahead and do a check of a non family member.  

Also I don't know if gun sales are registered when the check is done, but it seems like if they are, if someone becomes ineiligble, then those guns would have to be sold off etc. Having all guns so registered would make since?

EDIT:

It also seems if multiple sales is not registered, than someone who is ineligible buys one, it would not be possible to charge the seller, unless the buyer confesses who that was.  Though I suppose one could start at the other end and ask the last registered buyer who they sold it to, and then ask that person who they sold it to etc.


--------------
" before you make assertions about numbers, look at the numbers."   Krugman
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 20
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6866
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: May 08 2013, 9:52 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(wwwest @ May 07 2013, 3:47 pm)
QUOTE
Which leaves you in opposition to the opinion of 80-90 % of Americans, including me.

Really?  The Senate disagrees with you.   As does a recent USA Today poll.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 21
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6866
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: May 08 2013, 10:16 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(dayhiker9 @ May 07 2013, 4:59 pm)
QUOTE
If the current law worked so only family etc., used the loophole it might be ok.  It should be changed so as KenV puts it that the seller "KNOWS" the buyer would pass a check.  

Not sure what the penalty or liability should be if the seller is wrong.  Probably that would be enough for most to go ahead and do a check of a non family member.  

Consider for a moment what the penalty is for a gun dealer that sold a gun to someone who FAILED a background check.  He loses his Federal Firearms License (FFL).  Since private individuals making private transactions do not have a license to lose, the penalty is rather moot.

QUOTE
Also I don't know if gun sales are registered when the check is done, but it seems like if they are, if someone becomes ineiligble, then those guns would have to be sold off etc. Having all guns so registered would make since?
Most gun sales are NOT registered with the feds.  Gun registration has been a hot-button issue for decades.  The background check system does NOT register firearms.  It only determines if a buyer is eligible to be sold a gun by a licensed gun dealer.  The resulting gun purchase is generally NOT registered with the feds.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 22
wwwest Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6286
Joined: Dec. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: May 08 2013, 2:01 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Consider for a moment what the auto theft rate would be if autos were not registered, licensed and tracked by VIN #??

There would be very little chance of tracking or finding stolen autos and the auto theft picture would be a lot like the gun theft picture we have now!!
Clue stick, anyone??


--------------
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

- John Kenneth Galbraith
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 23
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6812
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: May 08 2013, 3:06 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

How many stolen cars will fit in a pocket? Even if a firearm were registered, hiding a 2# object so it is undetectable is just a tad bit easier than hiding a 1 ton vehicle.

As many of you insist, comparing MVs to firearms is stupid.


--------------
If you are free to be a Liberal- Thank a person with a gun.

Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 24
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 42737
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: May 08 2013, 4:22 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(KenV @ May 08 2013, 6:52 am)
QUOTE

(wwwest @ May 07 2013, 3:47 pm)
QUOTE
Which leaves you in opposition to the opinion of 80-90 % of Americans, including me.

Really?  The Senate disagrees with you.   As does a recent USA Today poll.

Which USA Today Poll would that be?

Surely not a survey of issue priorities with it's percentage breakdown of what people consider important overall ( % of people that say an issue is "#1" or "very importtant" versus some other issue etc.) as that's not at all the same thing as a straight up poll on people's opinion and support of the issue of background checks themselves. Such as Gallup does:
"Gallup's Jan. 19-20 survey, for example, showed that 91% of Americans said they personally would vote for a measure requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales. Gallup asked this question again in the April 22-25 survey and found a slight decline, to 83% support."

http://www.gallup.com/poll....te.aspx

But USA Today's results would add information so please provide a link to their poll if you can. It's recent so should be easy for you to locate.

ETA: A Quinnipiac University telephone poll yielded similar results:

"By a margin of 92 percent to 7 percent, voters supported background checks, the Quinnipiac University telephone poll showed. In households with a gun, 91 percent were in favor, while 8 percent were opposed, Quinnipiac said."
http://www.reuters.com/article....0130207
Online
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 25
TehipiteTom Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5713
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: May 08 2013, 4:38 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(KenV @ May 08 2013, 7:16 am)
QUOTE
Consider for a moment what the penalty is for a gun dealer that sold a gun to someone who FAILED a background check.  He loses his Federal Firearms License (FFL).  Since private individuals making private transactions do not have a license to lose, the penalty is rather moot.

If the buyer went on to commit a crime with the gun, that would make the seller prosecutable as a "straw purchaser".

--------------
Conservatives are the whiniest whiners in the wholy whiny history of whiny-ass whinerdom.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 26
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6812
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: May 08 2013, 7:59 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(TehipiteTom @ May 08 2013, 2:38 pm)
QUOTE

(KenV @ May 08 2013, 7:16 am)
QUOTE
Consider for a moment what the penalty is for a gun dealer that sold a gun to someone who FAILED a background check.  He loses his Federal Firearms License (FFL).  Since private individuals making private transactions do not have a license to lose, the penalty is rather moot.

If the buyer went on to commit a crime with the gun, that would make the seller prosecutable as a "straw purchaser".

A straw purchase is when a firearm is legally purchased but with the full intent that it would be passed on to someone else who might not otherwise be eligible.
It would not constitute a straw purchase if I were to sell a firearm I've had for an extended time or if I bought one as a gift for someone who would pass a background check.


--------------
If you are free to be a Liberal- Thank a person with a gun.

Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 27
dayhiker9 Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5755
Joined: Apr. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: May 08 2013, 9:28 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

QUOTE
Not sure what the penalty or liability should be if the seller is wrong.


I was wondering what the penalty should be set to, if the law was changed to permit a sale only with a background check or a private seller would vouch that the buyer did not need one.  The private seller currently does not have to do that now, he only has to say he does not know that he would not pass a check.

Thinking about it, I imagine making the seller civilly liable for damages might do the trick.  A fine in the ballpark of what a licensed gun dealer would suffer upon the loss of their license  might do it.  In that case they would be forced to sell their business , so I am not sure what that impact would be. Of course it removes a bad seller from the system.  Certainly a private seller would not be allowed to sell without a background check  once he sells to someone who would fail such a test (done or not), but that penalty is small.


--------------
" before you make assertions about numbers, look at the numbers."   Krugman
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 28
TehipiteTom Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5713
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: May 09 2013, 9:12 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montanalonewolf @ May 08 2013, 4:59 pm)
QUOTE

(TehipiteTom @ May 08 2013, 2:38 pm)
QUOTE

(KenV @ May 08 2013, 7:16 am)
QUOTE
Consider for a moment what the penalty is for a gun dealer that sold a gun to someone who FAILED a background check.  He loses his Federal Firearms License (FFL).  Since private individuals making private transactions do not have a license to lose, the penalty is rather moot.

If the buyer went on to commit a crime with the gun, that would make the seller prosecutable as a "straw purchaser".

A straw purchase is when a firearm is legally purchased but with the full intent that it would be passed on to someone else who might not otherwise be eligible.
It would not constitute a straw purchase if I were to sell a firearm I've had for an extended time or if I bought one as a gift for someone who would pass a background check.

That wasn't the hypothetical, though. The question was if there were background checks for private sales (as there should be), what should the penalty be for selling to someone who fails a background check.

--------------
Conservatives are the whiniest whiners in the wholy whiny history of whiny-ass whinerdom.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 29
Bass Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2120
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: May 09 2013, 9:20 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Squaretop
QUOTE
But my question is this:  What is a background check?  Just a police record?   Domestic violence?   DUI's?  Medical records?   Hospital records?  I guess I'm asking how far does it go, and how much does it cost?  


+1!!!!!....And this is the subject of MUCH confusion - and deliberate deception by some on BOTH sides of the issue.

dayhiker9 was kind enough to post the link for THE EXISTING BACKGROUND CHECK that must be done by all licensed gun dealers at gun shows, on the street, or in their retail establishments. As Montanalonewolf pointed out, most gun sales at gun shows are by licensed dealers - so a background check is necessary.

Gun sales between individuals walking around in gun shows currently do NOT require a background check by federal law. When my grandfather died and left his guns to me I did not have to go through a background check to be legal under the EXISTING background check law. That is the "background check loophole".

Examples from the EXISTING background check, EXISTING background check form:

QUOTE
Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are incompetent to manage your own affairs) OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution? (See Instructions for Question 11.f.)

Are you subject to a court order restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child or an intimate partner or child of such partner? (See Instructions for Question 11.h.)

Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic
violence? (See Instructions for Question 11.i.)


In my state, Tennessee, there is currently a $10.00 fee for each background check charged to the gun purchaser. In DC, this fee is $125.00. In a few states there is currently no fee. The fee adds to the cost of purchasing the gun. That means that by raising the fee to say, $1000.00 per gun, we can deter all but the wealthiest from purchasing a gun. This will help keep guns out of the hands of the rifraft and gangbangers.

If you take time to review the EXISTING background check law you will discover that it is already quiet extensive. However, it is STILL possible for private individuals to acquire guns without the background check. That is why the extensive expansion to the background check is needed - the UNIVERSAL Background Check.

The proposed UNIVERSAL Background check will bring all 50 states, all jurisdictional districts, into ONE comprehensive and accurate, up-to-date, and INSTANT background check system that covers ALL US citizens and legal residents. It is a big undertaking since the database must have current addresses ( on average, people move every seven years ), up-to-date reporting from ALL law enforcement jurisdictions and mental health professionals, etc.

As currently proposed, the background check fee paid by gun purchasers will fund this new service to gun purchasers. So there will be no new taxes.

That is why over 90% of NRA members support the proposed UNIVERSAL Background Check.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 30
WalksWithBlackflies Search for posts by this member.
Resident Eco-Freak Bootlicker
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 9830
Joined: Jun. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: May 09 2013, 10:35 am Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Bass @ May 09 2013, 9:20 am)
QUOTE
In my state, Tennessee, there is currently a $10.00 fee for each background check charged to the gun purchaser. In DC, this fee is $125.00. In a few states there is currently no fee. The fee adds to the cost of purchasing the gun. That means that by raising the fee to say, $1000.00 per gun, we can deter all but the wealthiest from purchasing a gun. This will help keep guns out of the hands of the rifraft and gangbangers.

Yes, because gangbangers often subject themselves to background checks when purchasing their guns.

--------------
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. - Lao Tzu
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
35 replies since May 06 2013, 12:45 pm < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


Page 1 of 212>>
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply Question.  (Hand raised)
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions