In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Background Checks: Yes or No?
WoundedWolf
Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
In the spirit of infighting and devisivness (just the way the gungrabbers wish we will continue to behave), recent posts have caused me to ask all of you these questions:
1. Do you agree with Background Checks for purchasing firearms?
2. What about for private-party transfers?
3. If yes, how in-depth should the background check be?
4. What things in someone's background should disqualify them from purchasing a firearm?
For the record, I agree for the most part with the current system of instant background checks. Here in Nevada, I can go to a gun shop, fill out the background form, and within 20 minutes be cleared over the telephone for the purchase of a firearm. According to the FBI, the records of that purchase are then destroyed, thanks to John Ashcroft. However, I believe the background check should only verify two things: 1) That you are a citizen of the United States, and 2) That you are not a convicted felon. This information should all be available through public records and would not violate anyone's privacy.
I look forward to your responses.
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
1. Do you agree with Background Checks for purchasing firearms?
2. What about for private-party transfers?
3. If yes, how in-depth should the background check be?
4. What things in someone's background should disqualify them from purchasing a firearm?
For the record, I agree for the most part with the current system of instant background checks. Here in Nevada, I can go to a gun shop, fill out the background form, and within 20 minutes be cleared over the telephone for the purchase of a firearm. According to the FBI, the records of that purchase are then destroyed, thanks to John Ashcroft. However, I believe the background check should only verify two things: 1) That you are a citizen of the United States, and 2) That you are not a convicted felon. This information should all be available through public records and would not violate anyone's privacy.
I look forward to your responses.
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
Comments
Do you believe that we should have background checks to be able to buy newspapers or watch movies? How about to buy a Bible or a K'oran? After all, don't all terrorists read the K'oran? Should we require background checks for anybody who wants to exercise their First Amendment rights to free speech?
For the record, I agree for the most part with the current system of instant background checks. Here in Nevada, I can go to a gun shop, fill out the background form, and within 20 minutes be cleared over the telephone for the purchase of a firearm.
Aint that nice. Only twenty minutes!!
Seems all the second amendment means to most is that the infringement doesnt take too long.
As long as your unconstitutional background check doesnt take too long, than it is OK.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
In other words, are you wholly opposed to background checks under any circumstances? Like even if you are applying for a job or trying to adopt a child?
Please clarify your position.
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
I do not "like" any government intrusion that is/could be used to deny or infringe upon the right of good and lawful citizens to buy and sell guns to each other.
However, I do not "like" the idea of the obviously deranged, offenders with a violent criminals history, any child with the money on hand to buy a gun, some one visiblily under the influence of alcohol or drugs being able to buy a gun especially if they are muttering something like "I'm going to kill that SOB" as he is making his/her purchase. I do not "like" all these situations ESPECIALLY if these situations are forced to be recognized as being legal and lawful transactions.
So I HAVE to support SOMETHING to keep the above from happening. Background checks, etc.
If for no other reason than after a few thousand people are killed by the buyers listed above, buyers whom probably everyone on this forum would not sell a gun to, after those buyers kill several thousand people, the backlash from the non-gun owning public would take away ALL gun ownership and we wouldn't even have a reason to have a debate llike this or even a reason to have a Gunbroker.com.
Because there would be NO guns.
Not preference, just fact.
That was my "line in the sand" as far as being a dealer.
People actually believe that they are destroying
and not keeping these records? ROFLMAO
The gene pool needs chlorine.
Buying a gun should be as easy as buying a chainsaw at the local hardware store. No FFL's, no BGC, nothing!
You finally said something I can agree with. Maybe it will happen again one day. [:)]
A job ? Adopting ? You found those items in the Constitution, did you ? Those are protected under the Constitution ? Gosh...
Folks...freedom is messy..and can be dangerous.That is why SOOOooo many people embrace government controls..the idea that Big Brother knows Soooo much more then you...or the guy across the road...
Guns, people, were sold across that hardware counter and in nearly every service station in America 40 years ago....Killings were not everyday occurrances, where I grew up...and guns were everywhere...
What changed ? People no longer demanded accountability for criminal misdeeds. They allowed the "Justice System" to become a breeding grounds for devients and power mad lawyers...using sensational cases as a springboard to higher office. Turning real criminals back out on the streets, to commit more crimes..so they can disarm more decent people...and add to their budgets...filling jails FULL of non-violent "Offenders" caught with funny tobacco....
That is really my question, Highball. Is the issue with background checks in any scenario? Or just when they are used for obtaining firearms?
If the issue is with background checks under any circumstances, then I would like to explore this in more detail. What specifically is unconstitutional about a background check if someone is merely searching public records?
I can understand if someone is stealing papers from your house or if they are diving into your medical records, but I don't see the issue with searching public records.
I would like to learn why you all think this is unconstitutional.
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
Recent events have proven this....
Molon Labe
The Founders considered that to be one of the natural rights...given by a power greater then man.
The "regulated" part of the equation used to be the communities and states job. They, like most other local jobs...were ceeded over to a "Big Brother"..after the Civil War..the war that saw Federal Government throw out the Constitution...
Be that as it may...the 3 % of the population that still respects the Constitution...still believe that man can be be controlled by better means then an All-Powerful Government...
Please do a roll call of who is for and who is against this idea.
anybody else?
The gun ain't what worries me..it is the hand that holds it.
Given a sensible culture...one that isn't screwed by Socialists and well-meaning but weak-kneed sob-systers..the hand that holds the gun would be trained and responsible......or shot down by a citizen that is.
Parents would mind their children. Those that are not ready for a firearm...WOULD NOT HAVE THEM...their PARENTS would see to it.
That is the way the world ran here in America..for many years.
Now we are going to have a mess to clean up...one of these fine days.
Allowing people to act in any other way then a responsible way is the surest death to a Republic...and freedom....
Tr;..let us make no laws restricting firearms...let us make the penalty for WILLFULL MISUSE of said firearm a very dangerous thing for the perpatrators...
God,Guts,& GunsHave we lost all 3 ??
Please don't. That's the beauty of it. Just don't try to hurt my feelings because I love ya'll! [:)]
So TR, what is with the sad smiley in your post?
I will never, ever agree that guns should be so free and easily bought and sold as to be purchased out of a vending machine.
Believe my words or not, but the same year that happens (or its equivalence) is the same year that ALL guns are outlawed for citizens.
Why? Simply because of the backlash from the general public because of all the killing and gun crime that will be committed against the general public. Committed by people now legally buying guns that never should have them; and when there was a simply background check never could have legally purchased them.
This one's for you, salzo.....
A background check is, essentially, allowing the feds to remove your presumption of innocence (as in 'guilty until proven innocent'), until you can prove to their satisfaction that you are not. It allows the feds to snoop into your business, which is specifically in violation of the 4th Amendment. By undergoing a background check, a registration can be formed, using your information, which puts you in the position of incriminating yourself, in contradiction to the 5th Amendment.
That is why it is unconstitutional!!!
And if any of you think a background check is a good idea, it is easily circumvented, because inherent criminals don't buy their goodies in retail stores, anyway, and sacking liberty in the pursuity of security is meritless.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
You say that background checks are unconstitutional. Is that merely if they are performed by the government? What if an individual does a background check on another individual? Is that unconstitutional?
Does this mean that the government should not ever keep any public records as it would be unconstitutional for them to ever look at them? Would no one ever be allowed to look at someone's criminal history? DMV records? How about calling a previous employer to confirm employment? Are personal references also unconstitutional? Would it be unconstitutional for me to give a personal reference about someone? What if it is a positive reference?
Please explain.
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
quote:
And if any of you think a background check is a good idea, it is easily circumvented, because inherent criminals don't buy their goodies in retail stores, anyway, and sacking liberty in the pursuity of security is meritless.
That is the very reason for having some kind of check on a gun buyer. If society removes all checks on a gun buyer the "criminals WILL start buying their goodies in retail stores".
Contained in your post above is the reason you defend the NRA.
Contained in your post above is the reason they will ban guns one of these days.
Decent people such as yourself convinced that the only force justified is govenmental force...that citizens are not capable of independent actions that are good.
Only Society at large...government..can possibly contain the evil element within that society.
You have thrown out the teaching of the founders.They taught that the greater evil was overweaning government....
See...one of the prime traits of gun banners is blind trust of government...and a blind fear of the guy across the street.
"Innocent until proven guilty" does not apply to:
A) Those who are not citizens of this country.
quote:You have thrown out the teaching of the founders.They taught that the greater evil was overweaning government....
See...one of the prime traits of gun banners is blind trust of government...and a blind fear of the guy across the street.
You are mistaken. There is a reason why our Founding Fathers created a Republic NOT a Democracy.
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
Smoking stuff ? You obviously know lots about THAT subject.Sadly, I cannot discuss the topic with you...not having your depth of knowledge about various non-legal substances....
quote:You say that background checks are unconstitutional. Is that merely if they are performed by the government? What if an individual does a background check on another individual? Is that unconstitutional?
No, but it would generate grounds for a civil law suit for infringement against another person, and snooping through things that were not his business. In principle, it is very similar to, if I was to print in a public forum that WoundedWolf is a child molester and a rapist, you would have grounds to sue me (provided I was lying) for defamation of character. On the other hand, a vendor has the right to refuse business to any of its clients, and I suppose if, while in the store, he slips the idea of blowing his ex-wife away, the loudmouth unwittingly sacked his right against self-incrimination, and the vendor would even have every right to phone the police about the transpired event.
quote:Does this mean that the government should not ever keep any public records as it would be unconstitutional for them to ever look at them? Would no one ever be allowed to look at someone's criminal history? DMV records? How about calling a previous employer to confirm employment? Are personal references also unconstitutional? Would it be unconstitutional for me to give a personal reference about someone? What if it is a positive reference?
Any public records? Yes. Past judgments are acceptable, provided they include only ones that found the subject guilty, but at the same time, such things should only serve to provide information for past indictments as would pertain to present accusations. Besides, if our country followed the lead where true felons are concerned, background checks would be unnecessary, anyhow.
Personal references from employer to employer are neither constitutional or unconstitutional. If they are civilly malicious, I believe the tarnished person deserves civil recourse in a way that no crooked lawyer would be able to undo. But if the feds wanted to know for their own records, then yes it would be wholly unconstitutional, because they have no business snooping in your life.
Would it be constitutional if you gave reference about someone else? No. Grounds for constitutionality exist where gov't is concerned, not you. You have the 1st Amendment freedom to give a reference on another, but you have a duty to tell the truth about it, because if you lie, you are liable for damages to the other person's character, and all losses that would have immediately occured as a result of the lie.
Now, as for gov't compiling a list of gun owners and what they have, that is the prelude to genocide, as witnessed throughout history, and incurring 56 million deaths throughout the 20th Century, alone. Not only is such an act wholly unconstitutional, it is demoniacal and evil.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
I don't recall seeing a check on gun owners in the US Constitution, fox. You want to point that one out to me?
The criminal element exists in our country because we have become easy targets for miscreants, and they are not in dire fear of us the way they were in the past. Why? We are being disarmed, heavily regulated, and given reasons not to act against those who do evil.
You remove these shackles from us, the criminal element of society will wither from attrition and die. A background check will not stop a person bent on doing evil, and even without it, retail stores will still be the last place standard criminals will go, specifically due to the price of them vs. the black market price of them.
Come on, fox, do a little thinking here. Don't just blithely swallow everything the NRA tells you. You are the NRA, and it needs you to think for it, and come up with new truths. You want to help society, you have to do your part to barrage them with the truth. Even if one person sees it, that is one person who has switched sides.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
Trfox; My friend.
Contained in your post above is the reason you defend the NRA.
Contained in your post above is the reason they will ban guns one of these days.
Decent people such as yourself convinced that the only force justified is govenmental force...
No, government is not the only force justified. In fact the only force government should ever use is that authorized by the constitution and approved by the citizens.
quote:
that citizens are not capable of independent actions that are good.
It is by the very good and independent actions by citizens that we even have our country with all it's great potential and more citizen freedoms than found in most other countries.
quote:
Only Society at large...government..can possibly contain the evil element within that society.
Well, yeah, I don't think anyone would argue that evil can be totally contained without some kind of organized effort. Government, Milita, etc.
quote:
You have thrown out the teaching of the founders.They taught that the greater evil was overweaning government....
I believe that any government that is too powerful at some point will turn evil.
quote:
See...one of the prime traits of gun banners is blind trust of government...and a blind fear of the guy across the street.
Now you know I don't blindly trust or even like government. And yeah, I fear the guy across the street if he is some violent person with a criminal history. I fear him even more if he is able to drive down to the local convience store and buy a gun out of a vending machine.[:o)]
quote:
You remove these shackles from us, the criminal element of society will wither from attrition and die. A background check will not stop a person bent on doing evil, and even without it, retail stores will still be the last place standard criminals will go, specifically due to the price of them vs. the black market price of them.
I don't agree totally with the government requirements presently used in order to purchase a gun. However requirements do serve a useful purpose overlooked by many. Everytime the citizens read about a crime committed with a gun by a known criminal, the citizens can assume (and it is usually true) that criminal obtained that gun by criminal (illegal means).
When those same citizens see me and you with our guns they can and do (I hope) assume we obtained our guns by legal means.
IF THAT DIFFERENCE is ever removed, the great majority of citizens will fear EVERYONE they know has a gun. At that point there will soon be no need for the NRA, GOA, etc., etc., or for GB.com because there will be no citizen ownership of guns.
So, you ask if background checks are unconstitutional? Yes they are. The second amendment says nothing of any exclusions on gun ownership. But the bigger question is, are they needed? Unfortunately I believe they are.
So in other words, you think it is OK for the government to enact unconstitutional policies, as long as those unconstitutional policies are necessary.
When it comes to government the "biggest question" should ALWAYS be whether or not their actions are constitutional. You got it mixed up. But you are in good company-Schumer, Kennedy, Clinton, Bush-they all would agree with your sentiments.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
Why are you upset? Did I misrepresent what you stated. You CLEARLY stated that you thought that checks were UNCONSTITUTIONAL, but necessary.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
Posted by jack 85 quote: "If freedom is short of weapons, we must compensate with willpower." Ya Jack, Heil Hitler! You freak!
You hurt my feelings for the second time!
You've been a bad, bad, bad ROBOT* lately!
*) robot- a machine capable of performing human duties.
1) Illegal Aliens
2) Convicted Felons (that have had their rights abridged by DUE PROCESS OF LAW)
I think it is ridiculous to acknowledge the above fact, but not allow the government a mechanism to follow through, such as with a background check (that would merely check PUBLIC RECORDS) to insure that an individual is a citizen and has not been convicted of a felony.
For those of you that do not acknowledge the above fact, then you are living in a fantasy world. You believe in laws and rights that will never be enforced. You are no better than our politicians that do the same. You are giving lip-service to an issue that you have no intention of ever addressing in a realistic manner. You are the same as those people that refuse to do anything about Illegal Aliens in our country, or even acknowledge there is a problem. You are the same as the mayor of San Francisco, who will blatently and knowingly ignore the law merely because he doesn't like the way it reads.
That is as plainly as I can present my viewpoint on this issue. Don't demand that the government adhere to the law if you will give them no mechanism to do so. All I hear from some of you is what the government shouldn't be doing, and how they should stay out of this business, and how criminals won't obey any law therefore we should have no laws. I believe in limited government too, but I still believe in government. What most of you are promoting is anarchy. If that is what you want then go to Somalia or Sudan. Check out how well anarchy has worked for them.
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
No, cowboy, I do not. But I still have enough faith in the system that I am willing to work to change it from within.
[8D]
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
I understand gunphreak's point about presumption of innocence, but in the manner prescribed above, the investigation is only on the names on the list. The only person who knows the buyer's name is the dealer.