A question/poll on background checks

[Penguin]

I have a question for you guys on the late Universal Background Check legislation.

I know the NRA waited and then came out against the legislation. I have heard Manchin, a man who is usually pretty damned reliable on gun rights, state straight out that the NRA lied about private transfers. From what I can see he is probably telling the truth. All that aside, I noticed a strain of resistance from the gun owning community that had nothing to do with private transfers or loaning your hunting rifle to a friend. The basis of their desire to see this legislation killed was that THEY didn't want to have the government doing a background check on THEIR purchases.

These are people who saw THEIR loophole being closed and didn't like it.

I have no sympathy for these guys. I have had a background check done on every single gun purchase I have made since it became the law of the land. Every. Single. One. I have even had to have the state police do a thorough background check on me so that I could obtain a firearm owners permit which is needed before getting a hunting license in this state. I don't even consider background checks (with the exception of private transfers between friends and family) to be a 2nd Amendment issue. The SC has held that background checks are not only permissible but that they are prudent. The state has the right to deny purchase of firearms to those deemed to have given up their right by virtue of illegal/violent activity.

So private transfers aside, am I the only gun owner in America who doesn't see a problem with making people go through the system to purchase a gun? I'm just curious.

Will

[Buckrub]

"Private Transfers Aside"????

How do you get to put them aside? That's what they want? And what is a "Public Transfer"? Isn't every transfer a Private Transfer?

I prefer Freedom and Privacy over Safety. Stop punishing ME. I didn't do anything wrong. Punish those that commit crimes, for gosh sakes.

You asked a question. I'll ask you one.

Tell me, quite specifically, how you see UBC legislation helping solve mass murder crime, or how it would make schools safer?

[BarryBobPosthole]

I've had background checks done on the retail purchases I've made as well. I think the new law, and I may be wrong here, was expanding requirements to private sales, aka the 'gun show loophole'. I actually agree that guns bought and sold at a gun show are no different than retail sales and not private transactions and I think that is a loophole that needs to be closed. And I think that brokered sales, where some website somewhere lists guns that are for sale and puts buyer and seller together and makes money off of that business is a retail operation as well. Me buying a gun from Buckly is not a retail sale. I know it is hard to come up with a law that protects one and regulates another is difficult but it could be done if they'd spend the time on it. And while I think that loophole is one that needs to be closed, this legislation needed to be defeated. It went too far.
So I'm glad it was defeated. that doesn't make a lot of the reasoning behind a lot of the opposition total hoo hah in my opinion. And the resultant name calling by the president and by the opposition is childish and ridiculous. And the NRA has WAY too much power in American politics. If this was a lobby that was opposed to what most of us believe in, then we'd be screaming to high heaven. The NRA is scary and their tactics are sickening. So was Obama's reaction (thanks, Gene for calling him 'Barry', that hurt!).
This whole episode has been embarassing for American politics. We have one side that regurgitated the same old gun laws they've wanted for 20 years and had not one thing in them that would address Columbine or Newtown or any of these tragedies. And we have the other side who just opposes everything and hasn't come up with one constructive idea for addressing them either. Its pretty ridiculous that we have such a bunch of drones representing us.
I'll reiterate what I said before: I'm firing them all with my vote come next election, and that's both Dem and Rep. I won't vote for a single incumbent again. We need to throw these bums fucking out.
BKB

ps...and just a clarification of something I've seen repeated both in media and in the tons of discussions going on about this: this law was not defeated. it actually was passed by a pretty significant majority on the Senate. What it failed to do was overcome the Senate rules governing passage of these amendments. In other words, the basic 'majority rules' idea is out the window these days, which is kind of strange in itself. But it was no majority by a long shot.

[Buckrub]

If this law would have been in effect last December, tell me how it would have stopped Newtown?

[Penguin]

"Private Transfers Aside"???? ...How do you get to put them aside?

You asked a question. I'll ask you one....Tell me, quite specifically, how you see UBC legislation helping solve mass murder crime, or how it would make schools safer?

I think transfers of weapons between family is something that cannot and should not be fiddled with. Likewise the transfer of ownership between friends who know each other well. In these cases a man should know whether he is giving the weapon to some lunatic or a violent felon who is going to use the thing to commit more crimes. If he knows and goes ahead with it when there is a plain, visible pattern of illegal activity I think the seller should be held liable as well.

For all other purchases I don't have the slightest problem with the state running background checks. I have to. I have done it repeatedly. So far as I can tell it hasn't hurt me at all. Why should someone else be able to wiggle out of the having the state do a background check when the rest of us unwashed masses have to do it? And don't even get me started on those who improvise ways to avoid BCs to peddle guns to those who aren't legally able to buy guns. Far as I am concerned they are as guilty as the guy who pulled thr trigger.

As to you second question I never said they would. But as long as there is a way for purchases to be made outside the BC system then it is useless.

I stated right after Newtown (and took a healthy ration of shit for it I might add) that the best way to stop these mass shootings was to concentrate on mental illness. Stated I was tired of hearing about these lunatics going off their meds and going on a shooting rampage. Also stated that there are a hell of a lot of people walking around that ought to, by rights, be locked up and now let out till they proved sane again. All of which got me more crap than I could shake a stick at. Funny that over time the NRA has echoed the exact same thoughts and not a peep has been heard from gun owners. I have yet to hear one single gun owner take the NRA to task for their position.

Thing is I am starting to wonder how many gun owners think for themselves and how many just wait to see what the NRA says and then adopt it as their position. Not referring to anyone here, just stating that I find it odd.

Will

[BarryBobPosthole]

I assume you're asking Chilly Willie that question?
BKB

[Buckrub]

yes.

[hotshot]

I mentioned mental health as an issue as well. Due to budget issues, (and I am repeating info shared via state rep info), The state of Indiana can only maintain 130 beds in THE state mental hospital. Many people who are mentally ill could be treated if health care was not so pohibitive. Also, a stigma exists over mental illness... If someone says, " I have diabetes".... no big deal.... if they manage it, they do fine. If someone were to say, "I have a mental illness, but I manage it." he or she would be judged differently much of the time.

[Chicken Dinner]

Will, I remember your post over at 24hour Campfire and I don't know whether to call you brave or stupid for putting it out in front of the tinfoil hat crowd over there. I'm kind of inbetween on the issue of this piece of legislation. As long as it doesn't result in a federal database/registry, I don't have a real big issue with doing background checks on private sales. (I do think (and I "think" this piece of legislation did) family transfers should be exempted.) Right now, buying a used handgun via a private sale is a loop hole that any nutbag, convicted felon or domestic abuser could drive a truch through. Similar to a retail sale or interstate sale, it would seem pretty easy to require an FFL to do the transfer. All that being said, I do have to admit that I am happy to own a couple of firearms that were acquired privately.

All that being said, having this legislation in place wouldn't have done a damn thing to prevent any of the high profile shootings of the past decade.

[Captain]

so that I could obtain a firearm owners permit which is needed before getting a hunting license in this state.

See that's just wrong
Over two hundred years ago YOU got your firearm owners permit.... PERIOD

Take Care, Captain

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[Penguin]

Will, I remember your post over at 24hour Campfire and I don't know whether to call you brave or stupid for putting it out in front of the tinfoil hat crowd over there.

Honestly looking back on it I don't even know which it was. Standing up and speaking my peace or catching a case of the dumbass. Flip a coin and pick'em I guess. :)

I don't regret it though.

Cappy I agree entirely. Which is why I have made in abundantly clear to my better half that when retirement time comes we ain't gonna be anywhere around here. It ain't no place to leave your ghost.

Will

[DeputyDog]

The thing is, how would making people like us submit to a background check, stop a mentally ill person from killing a lot of people? The shooter in Newton, did not buy the guns used, so no background check would have stopped him. The kids at Columbine, didn't buy the guns, they had people get them for them, again, background checks would not have stopped anything. Why pass a law that will not do any good to stop what you are trying to stop? If you have a problem with people running stop signs, you don't lower the speed limit, you enforce the existing law on running stop signs.

[Buckrub]

Willy, you are asking questions faster than you are answering them.

I asked how the current law that you espouse would help. You haven't told me how it would help anything.

You say that you want background checks to include mental patients so they can't buy guns. A) How would that have stopped the NUT in Newtown? He didn't buy the guns, he stole them. B) You have no knowledge of what it takes to stop a deranged/insane person. I do. You can't. They have RIGHTS, above anything you wish for them to be subjected to. They can't be stopped from any legal activity, they can't be committed until they actually commit evil deeds, and a doctor's note saying they are nuts can not stop them from anything. You will NEVER get it passed to where that changes. I'm with you 100%. But the reality is it will not happen. So why harp on it? What good does that do? It detracts from any actual positive steps, is all I see it doing. It's a "sounds good" line to spout out. I don't mean anything negative to you, and I'll debate at any time. But I have personal family history in this area, and I know from which I speak. Everyone that has disagreed with me has done so from a perspective of what they WISH the law was, and not what it is.

And what good would it do if this law passes? What if we had a National Registry, and what if EVERY gun were registered? What do you think the government would do with that info? Explain in detail how that would help. Very specific detail. I can't see it doing anything positive to stop any crime. What am I missing?

And I don't care if you did register EVERY SINGLE GUN. I don't want to register mine, ever. My guns are a God Given Right, not a privilege granted by man. That's how my current law reads, plain as day. The thing I don't get, is that if Group A hates that so much, why don't they work as hard to change the Constitution (it's been done a LOT) instead of whining about things that don't apply to it???? Seems they'd be more likely to succeed. If Group A wants the Constitution to give the Federal Government (a group that is worthless, corrupt, mean spirited, ego driven, power maniacs) the power to keep me from buying something, they need to reword it to fit them and see if it'll pass. Heck, I betcha in today's environment, it would! Sad but I bet that's true, if everyone voted. So go about it that way. But until then, that's the dadgum law, and that's just how it is. I do not want the Federal Government even knowing that I exist, much less knowing what I own.

My debate, the one I'd LOVE to have to a logical conclusion, is WHY anyone wants it any other way? To what end? To what purpose? What is the fear? Where is the guilt coming from? Why????

[Penguin]

Fair enough.

It isn't what I think closing these loopholes will do so much as it is what allowing them to remain open does right now. Without ensuring that every single public purchase goes through the system you neuter the law. It does no good to have 80% of us doing things the right way if you have straw purchases and back alley workarounds that allow criminals to obtain these guns. Further I want the punishment for selling weapons to people who wouldn't have passed a background check to be high. Sky high.

And then I want the law enforced. I want people who knowingly try to purchase weapons illegally to be given a 10 pound sledge hammer and about 10 good years of making little rocks out of big ones. What will this do? Make it where you have these back alley purchases of guns put right where they belong, far outside the law.

You know me. You've known me for ages. I am law and order from top to bottom. Blue collar crime, white collar crime, victimless to terrorism I make no exceptions. If the law is unjust then change it. But having a hole you can drive a truck through that intentionally neuters a law that is on the books? To have to go through the process over and over while others are skirting the law to intentionally deliver guns to felons?

I'm sick of it. Either do it right or take it off the books.

Far as the mental health thing goes I know you are right... as the law stands now. I want it changed. I want mental health taken seriously. I want people who need help to be given it. And I want mentally ill people with violent tendencies locked up. I want people who are suitable only through medication to be made to take their pills in front of witnesses that can verify that they are on their meds. Come off them and get locked up.

I'm tired of carrying water (as a gun owner) for these mentally deranged people who commit crimes. I want them taken care of and kept a country mile from weapons.

Will

[Buckrub]

OK, gotcha. IF you (we) can change the mental health law, you KNOW I'll be the first in line to vote for it. But they won't be locked up, and it is my worthless and humble opinion that you are naive if you think they ever will. I know it would assuage your soul, and mine.......but it won't happen. And advocating it is fine, but banking on it as a real solution is meaningless (again, Bill, just MY opinion).,

And so I say that the real answer is nothing. I hate it. I do hate it. Folks tell me I'm calloused, and heartless. They don't know me, or what I do, and whom I do it for. I'm not heartless. I'm an analyst by trade, and an observer of reality. So if you want to harp on the mental illness side of this, go for it. As I said, I'm FIRST in line to vote for it. I am.

But you are getting nowhere. And besides.............for the third time.................the mentally deranged person at Newtown, had he gone through the checks that you want, would STILL have been under 'house arrest' with his mother (and you know it) and would have still stolen these guns that he didn't buy, and he'd still have done what he did. So if Newtown is your impetus, your fulcrum to swing to the side of "wanting something done", then I keep asking for you to tell me how this law would have fixed anything???? And if this law would not have fixed anything, then why work to pass it so much? Why bother? What's the point? Honestly....what?

And if you are so much for enforcement of laws, then tell me why thousands of background checks are failed each year but NO arrests (NONE) are ever made??? This administration (The VP himself) said "they don't have time for such triviality. You want the book to be thrown at folks who sell/buy weapons but wouldn't have passed a background check. GOOD. FINE!!! But what about the ones that actually fail them now?????? Good grief, man......they aren't potential law breakers! They ARE law breakers!! And not one is ever arrested. SO why would this American Citizen think that adding more laws would matter? Convince me!

Connecticut has some of the country's strictest gun laws. Did it help? None. Wash DC is a crime infested cesspool, but they have the strictest. Do laws stop gun crime now? Tell you what. You enforce ALL the gun laws on the books now, and then come and we'll talk about more of 'em.

And no person I've ever "known" is smarter than you. Well, maybe Posthole. Honestly, both of you rank very high on my "Smart Folks I've Known" list...(I used to could spout off the name of your Masters Thesis, because it was SO COOL sounding).........but geez, guys. I hear rhetoric but no cold, sound thinking. Posthole's mad at the NRA cause they are "jack booted thugs". Guess what? I work an NRA banquet here, and I'll tell you second hand that the NRA admin guys "up the ladder" are dumber than a box of rocks. And plumb goofy to boot. But who else is fighting for us? Name another group taking punches and throwing some back? This is important!! FREEDOM and LIBERTY are words that mean more to me than the safety of anyone, including myself and including my family. Dying in the name of Safety is.............pretty dull and less than striking stuff! But Freedom? Man, I'd die for that. It means being FREE. Not restricted. Not held back. It means doing what I can do with what I have, and relying on no one. That's high and mighty, and worthy of life.

I know I am castigated many times for what I believe. I know I'm hammered for saying what I believe publicly and loudly. But I can't just be quiet at times. Maybe I have too many soapboxes. I don't know. But I know I have at least this one.

[BarryBobPosthole]

I haven't read thesewalls of words, but consider, if the law is changed to prohibit possession of firearms by the mentally ill, it will likely take gun ownership rights away from a lot of veterans who suffer from PTSD, which I'm not willing to let happen.
BKB

[Thumper]

I'm going through a related dilemma right now P-hole. I have some doctors telling me I'm depressed and they want me to continue seeing the shrinks that I met with a couple times, then told them to jump in a lake and never went back.

I was told the other day I'm addicted to pain meds and have to go through rehab ... I also told THAT doctor to bite me and I'll handle it myowndamnself. He said going cold turkey could give me a heart attack and I need to follow a doctors program to wean myself off of them. Show me where I ever said anything about "cold-turkey"!

Ok, now how would diagnosed depression and narcotics addiction affect my CCW? It's like a "Catch-22" ... do what the doctors say and never be able to own a gun ... or tell them to "go pound sand" and handle it my own way. They have me between a rock and a hard spot. Another drawback, it would bolster my legal case if I'm diagnosed with depression AND an addiction to Rx drugs due to a surgeon's screw-up ... so I could be "cutting off my nose in spite of my face".

I have some deep soul searching to do here and decide how important my rights are to me. It sucks being me sometimes. :(

[Buckrub]

Great point, Posty.

Here's a good op ed piece on it:

Not falling for false hope

By COURTLAND MILLOY WASHINGTON POST


I was considering giving up my gun a while back. Hadn’t been to the shooting range in months. Target shooting, not self-defense, was why I bought the thing. But it was serving no purpose locked in a case, unloaded and hidden away.

Then President Barack Obama began coming up with the oddest ideas about keeping guns from “falling into the wrong hands.”

Dangerous hands, irresponsible hands, he says. But the national gun-control legislation set for debate in Congress would rely on a bureaucratic dragnet of “background checks” so extensive that anybody’s hands could end up being the wrong ones.

Including mine.

If Obama had his way, my doctor would be asking about my guns while checking my blood pressure.How many firearms do I own? What kind? Where do I keep them? Then he gets to grill me about mental health. Do I get manic or depressed? Now bend over.

And if the answers don’t satisfy, Obama wants him to rat me out to the police.

I don’t believe that Obama is out to take my gun as some on the far right believe. But he sure seems bent on harassing me into giving it up.

If you don’t own a gun, you probably don’t care. You probably think it makes sense to ban “high-capacity” magazines and those mean-looking “military-style” rifles. Doing something is better than doing nothing, we are told, as if doing what works is not even a consideration.

But here’s the thing: What will fool naive citizens about gun control will not fool criminal gunslingers. They know when a politician is firing blanks. They’ve heard them shoot off at the mouth too many tines before.

“When law enforcement recovers a gun during a criminal investigation, they can trace that gun’s path from its manufacturer to the dealer who sold it to its first purchaser,” Obama says in one of his pitches for gun control. “This gun tracing process helps law enforcement to solve violent crime by generating leads in specific cases and can reveal gun trafficking patterns when large amounts of tracing data are combined.”

Obama says he will issue a presidential memorandum requiring federal law enforcement agencies to trace all such firearms. Sounds good. Until you realize that every time Obama opens his mouth on gun control, gun sales skyrocket. For him, saying nothing would probably be better than saying something.

Last year there were 340,000 requests for gun traces from about 19,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States. Only 6,000 guns were actually traced, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The manpower to run down that many guns just isn’t there. Why pretend that it is?

Be honest. There are roughly 300 million guns in the United States. But the people doing the vast majority of the killings are young black men in low-income urban areas, as are their victims. Obama wants to give $10 million to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study “the causes and prevention of gun violence.” Better to spend that money paying hooligans to give up their illegal guns and start picking up trash in their neighborhoods.

Politicians would do well to learn how the real war on gun violence is being fought.

For example: In federal court last week, 23-year-old Ezra Griffith was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. Homicide detectives in the District of Columbia had confiscated a 9mm Glock with an extended 30-round magazine during a search of Griffith’s apartment in Southeast Washington. The U.S. attorney’s office successfully prosecuted the case.

Another gunman off to jail. Another gun off the streets. That’s how it’s done. Go after the criminal. Take his illegal gun. Leave everybody else alone.

The proposed national gun-control legislation would make it harder for law-abiding citizens to purchase guns and if passed would surely be hailed as a victory over the “gun lobby.” But it would do nothing to curb gun violence where the problem is at its worse-in black neighborhoods. Nor would it do much to stop the kind of carnage that occurred in Newtown, Conn.

Still, you have to admit, the bill is at least something, even if filled with false hope and folly. I’m just not falling for it. Count me among those who’ll be sticking to their guns, lest Obama think his snake oil made it slip from my hands.

[DeputyDog]

Doing the wrong thing just for the sake of doing "something" won't solve anything. If anyone needs to spend the time, money, and effort to "do something" about the problem, do it right, do something that will actually make a difference, not just smoethingthat will make naive people feel better, or make it look like you've accomplished something.

[Penguin]

And so I say that the real answer is nothing. I hate it. I do hate it. Folks tell me I'm calloused, and heartless. They don't know me, or what I do, and whom I do it for. I'm not heartless...

And if you are so much for enforcement of laws, then tell me why thousands of background checks are failed each year but NO arrests (NONE) are ever made??? This administration (The VP himself) said "they don't have time for such triviality. You want the book to be thrown at folks who sell/buy weapons but wouldn't have passed a background check. GOOD. FINE!!! But what about the ones that actually fail them now?????? Good grief, man......they aren't potential law breakers! They ARE law breakers!! And not one is ever arrested. SO why would this American Citizen think that adding more laws would matter? Convince me!


I don't think that at all Bucky. Never have. We all have opinions on ~what~ can be done and what the tradeoffs are. Just because you think that nothing can be done does not mean that you don't care.

As far as the latter part of your post goes I completely agree. You are preaching to the choir brother. I have watched as President after President and Attorney General after Attorney General has paraded through DC and completely ignored the fact that thousands upon thousands of people broke the law by lying on BCs or else bought guns illegally and nothing has been done. Not in my lifetime anyway.

I'm not kidding when I say that I am law and order. But I only speak for myself.

And it is not just guns. I have watched as the time has run out on the statutes of limitations for the biggest fraud in the history of mankind. For the most part no effort has been made to hold those responsible for this to account. MOF the current AG stated straight out that he would not pursue these guys because it would affect the global economy... WFT? This man gets paid to do a job and admitted in front of congress that he refused to do so because of economic concerns. It is a microcosm of how America functions as a whole and I hate it. This comes from the top down and there is no excuse for it. This attitude only confirms to the average Joe that there are two sets of laws in the nation, one for the rich and powerful and another for the rest of us. It is more corrosive than anyone believes if you ask me. There'll be hell to pay over this one day.

So as far as that part of your argument goes I say preach on brother. You and I are in complete agreement. But so long as there is a way to skirt the law the current law is inadequate. We have to not only enforce the current law but make it so that there is no question whatsoever about the legality of how guns are channeled to criminals at this time. Put those that do so completely outside the letter of the law and leave no doubt about it. THEN bring the hammer down in no uncertain terms.

At least this is how I see things. I've been wrong before.

Jim I wanted to take just a second to say a couple words about your situation. Depression is real man. I know folks who have battled that on and off for years. But the biggest danger seems to be to themselves. I'm not talking about depression or eating disorders or any of the other serious but contained problems. We need to step up as a nation and get these folks help. But these aren't the folks I want put on lists or losing access to firearms.

I'm talking about full blown psychosis. There are some troubled folks walking the streets right now who fantasize about murdering people. Who play scenarios out in their heads about how to inflict pain on the innocent and murder those around them. These are the folks I am talking about. These folks have no quality of life the way things stand now. They are the walking dead. We are doing them no favors letting them walk around unsupervised. They need help and society needs them taken out of circulation.

Will

[Buckrub]

Thanks, Willy. As to your last paragraph, you described part of the life of my brother in law. Worse, he actually carried out his threats against a state cop that lived close by, threatening to his face to kill him. He did the same to his sister, my wife. Yet every judges said "no, you can't have him committed, he gets better with medicine. Only if he literally kills someone can I commit him". That's the law. If you honest to gosh think that you're going to change those laws, go for it. No one wants it more than I. But the same ones that want gun control gave us those laws, and both are all about guilt. Those laws won't be changed. So you need to think of another avenue to solve the 'mass murder problem', in my opinion. That one won't fly.

And you can't give folks help for Depression unless they're 85 years old, either. If you do, and it goes on their medical record, they can no longer buy life insurance from anyone. They will have difficulty buying health insurance. They will be turned down for many things, including home loans. Most won't risk it. So that one is not going to work well either.

[Buckrub]

Here you go, Penguin:

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-taking-action-gun-background-152057250.html

Here's my prediction. If they take mental health out of the HIPAA laws that Clinton got done, then I'm pretty sure I'll be labeled as a "Mental Health Risk" before long............. And if they don't get HIPAA changed sufficiently, or get states to go along with their plan, then you/they can't stop MH patients from buying guns through LEGAL channels...... Course, they'll still steal them, buy them illegally, etc. That's what makes most folks upset, the hypocrisy of all these proposals claiming that they'll be effective.

[Gunther]

I have a question for you guys on the late Universal Background Check legislation.

I know the NRA waited and then came out against the legislation. I have heard Manchin, a man who is usually pretty damned reliable on gun rights, state straight out that the NRA lied about private transfers. From what I can see he is probably telling the truth. All that aside, I noticed a strain of resistance from the gun owning community that had nothing to do with private transfers or loaning your hunting rifle to a friend. The basis of their desire to see this legislation killed was that THEY didn't want to have the government doing a background check on THEIR purchases.

These are people who saw THEIR loophole being closed and didn't like it.

I have no sympathy for these guys. I have had a background check done on every single gun purchase I have made since it became the law of the land. Every. Single. One. I have even had to have the state police do a thorough background check on me so that I could obtain a firearm owners permit which is needed before getting a hunting license in this state. I don't even consider background checks (with the exception of private transfers between friends and family) to be a 2nd Amendment issue. The SC has held that background checks are not only permissible but that they are prudent. The state has the right to deny purchase of firearms to those deemed to have given up their right by virtue of illegal/violent activity.

So private transfers aside, am I the only gun owner in America who doesn't see a problem with making people go through the system to purchase a gun? I'm just curious.

Will

Yes.