HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Alarming fact about backg...

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 12:07 PM

Alarming fact about background checks.

As a truck driver, in order to get a job with certain companies. I have to go thru several background checks, which includes my finacial, health, driving, training & most importantly my criminal record. In order for me to get certified to haul any hazardous materials, I have to give my finger prints sent to the FBI and they do a vigorous check on me. Now, if I can follow the law, why can't gun owners & the NRA have laws they have follow?

72 replies, 5196 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 72 replies Author Time Post
Reply Alarming fact about background checks. (Original post)
imanamerican63 Jun 2016 OP
jberryhill Jun 2016 #1
KatyMan Jun 2016 #3
DustyJoe Jun 2016 #56
Straw Man Jun 2016 #60
Dem2 Jun 2016 #2
hack89 Jun 2016 #4
imanamerican63 Jun 2016 #6
hack89 Jun 2016 #8
PJMcK Jun 2016 #26
jpak Jun 2016 #16
hack89 Jun 2016 #17
jpak Jun 2016 #19
hack89 Jun 2016 #20
jpak Jun 2016 #35
hack89 Jun 2016 #39
jpak Jun 2016 #40
hack89 Jun 2016 #47
metalbot Jun 2016 #63
hack89 Jun 2016 #64
metalbot Jun 2016 #66
hack89 Jun 2016 #67
Straw Man Jun 2016 #58
malthaussen Jun 2016 #5
imanamerican63 Jun 2016 #18
world wide wally Jun 2016 #24
Beaverhausen Jun 2016 #49
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #52
Hoyt Jun 2016 #53
treestar Jun 2016 #69
malthaussen Jun 2016 #71
kimbutgar Jun 2016 #7
hack89 Jun 2016 #9
kimbutgar Jun 2016 #10
hack89 Jun 2016 #11
scscholar Jun 2016 #12
imanamerican63 Jun 2016 #13
Rex Jun 2016 #15
hack89 Jun 2016 #21
kimbutgar Jun 2016 #30
Hoyt Jun 2016 #54
Igel Jun 2016 #31
Straw Man Jun 2016 #61
Rex Jun 2016 #14
IronLionZion Jun 2016 #22
world wide wally Jun 2016 #23
elljay Jun 2016 #25
ileus Jun 2016 #27
imanamerican63 Jun 2016 #28
DonP Jun 2016 #29
Crunchy Frog Jun 2016 #48
DonP Jun 2016 #50
Name removed Jun 2016 #32
maxsolomon Jun 2016 #36
HuckleB Jun 2016 #43
jmg257 Jun 2016 #46
pansypoo53219 Jun 2016 #33
maxsolomon Jun 2016 #37
Hoyt Jun 2016 #55
maxsolomon Jun 2016 #72
Adrahil Jun 2016 #65
former9thward Jun 2016 #34
HuckleB Jun 2016 #42
former9thward Jun 2016 #44
HuckleB Jun 2016 #45
Straw Man Jun 2016 #59
NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #62
Frank Cannon Jun 2016 #38
HuckleB Jun 2016 #41
jtx Jun 2016 #51
Abq_Sarah Jun 2016 #57
mopinko Jun 2016 #68
Odin2005 Jun 2016 #70

Response to imanamerican63 (Original post)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 12:09 PM

1. Same to practice as a lawyer

 


People have a Constitutional right to counsel.

But in order to be admitted, you have to go through a thorough background check and submit fingerprints which are, as with you, also sent to the FBI.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #1)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 12:16 PM

3. Hell, I'm a nobody IT guy at a bank

and I had to submit fingerprints, etc. to get hired.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KatyMan (Reply #3)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 12:02 AM

56. Police also

On the force in the eighties, full fbi check, fingerprints
ALL personal weapons registered with the PD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KatyMan (Reply #3)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 03:04 AM

60. IT guy at a bank?

And you wonder why you had to submit fingerprints? C'mon now ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to imanamerican63 (Original post)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 12:11 PM

2. Cuz gun culture is "special"

Meaning mostly rural conservative scared white people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to imanamerican63 (Original post)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 12:38 PM

4. There is a background check system in place

What's your beef with it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #4)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 12:45 PM

6. I am good with it!

I was pointing out the lack of gun background laws!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to imanamerican63 (Reply #6)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 12:52 PM

8. What is a background law? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #8)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 03:04 PM

26. A law about the ground in your backyard? (wink, n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #4)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 01:06 PM

16. Only for gun sales through FFL dealers - not private sales or transfers

and you know this

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #16)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 01:08 PM

17. I am fine with UBCs - my state requires them

But that is a state matter - as you know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #17)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 01:10 PM

19. UBC should be federal - otherwise neighboring states could be source of illegitimate guns

like we have today

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #19)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 02:00 PM

20. Federal government has no power over intrastate commerce

If they had, they would have made UBCs part of the Brady Bill. They regulated every single transaction they had jurisdiction over - hard to imagine they simply overlooked UBCs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #20)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 06:00 PM

35. That is such bullshit

Are you saying, if I bought a gun made in my home state, I would be exempt from a background check?

LOL

really

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #35)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 06:46 PM

39. We are talking about private sales of personal property

new guns are purchased through dealers. Which are federally licensed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #39)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 06:48 PM

40. Bullshit called and you got nothin'

FFL dealers sell new and used guns

Stop it

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #40)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 09:08 PM

47. UBCs have nothing to do with sales through dealers

And you know it. Private sales between private citizens are not covered by federal law except if the sale crosses state lines. And you know that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #20)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 09:03 AM

63. You can stretch the commerce clause pretty far

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Essentially arguing that by growing wheat for himself, the farmer was not purchasing on the open market, and was therefore affecting the market price, affecting interstate commerce.

You could essentially use the same logic that private sales of firearms impact market price of firearms, therefore falling under the commerce clause.

I don't think UBC's were overlooked, I suspect it was that they'd be hard to implement, would impose a burden on some people (for example, what happens if you live three hours from the nearest licensed dealer?), and at the time they would have been so wildly unpopular that it would have jeopardized the rest of the bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to metalbot (Reply #63)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 09:22 AM

64. A federal UBC bill would fail

Simply because it is unenforceable. How can you determine if a gun was illegally transferred when the number of guns and who owns them is invisible to the government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #64)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 11:32 AM

66. It's not unenforceable in the long run

(I'm not arguing in favor or against UBC in the context of this discussion)

UBC would essentially become de facto registration (which could be a legal challenge).

Initially you have the problem that we have 100+ million firearms in the hands of millions of Americans. Once one of those firearms is transferred legally via a UBC, you'd then have a "chain of custody". Of course, this would require an additional use of the NCIS database that isn't authorized under current law, but if you're going to pass universal background checks, you could modify the legal uses of NCIS. At some point (far down the road), the people who own those firearms will all be dead, and relatives inheriting those firearms would need to pass UBC's to inherit them. I'd be interested in the statistics on how long firearms are owned, since those would give you a good indication on how long it would take to get X% of firearms into the system.

New firearms are only sold via registered dealers, so you'd have a chain of custody for all new firearms sold. You'd also begin to be able to filter on age as time goes by. For example, a 21 year old with a pistol five years after the passage of UBC would be unlikely (depending on their state) to be able to claim that they bought it legally before the law was passed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to metalbot (Reply #66)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 11:43 AM

67. That assumes people comply with the law

I would expect massive civil disobedience similar in scale to what we are presently seeing in CT and NY. Compliance rates for there AWBs is less than 20%. Part of the issue is that many LEO refuse to enforce it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #16)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 02:17 AM

58. Depends on your state.

Last edited Sat Jun 18, 2016, 02:52 AM - Edit history (1)

Only for gun sales through FFL dealers - not private sales or transfers

18 states have some form of background check for private sales. NY has it. It doesn't do much to deter illicit trafficking, but it does bring extra income to FFLs, who charge anywhere from $10 to $50 to do the transfer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to imanamerican63 (Original post)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 12:45 PM

5. Ultimately, because your right to drive a big rig...

... is not guaranteed by the constitution. This is, essentially, the crux of the argument, and true second amendment warriors will not concede that "regulation" is not an impediment, nor will they concede that government regulates other rights as it finds expedient, for example freedom of speech and habeus corpus.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #5)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 01:08 PM

18. I understand this, the crux of my thought....

Last edited Fri Jun 17, 2016, 01:50 PM - Edit history (1)

It should be our constitutional right to protect us from those who should never have or own a gun!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #5)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 02:48 PM

24. But the "general well being" is

Guns don't seem to help my common welfare or my general well being.
But I forgot... there is no lobby for our general well being.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #5)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 10:52 PM

49. Neither is anyone's right to buy an automatic rifle

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beaverhausen (Reply #49)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 11:23 PM

52. Automatic rifles have been very heavily regulated

 

Since the 1930s. Not to mentionn, no new civilian automatic rigles have been manufactured or new ones sold since 1986.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #52)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 11:55 PM

53. But not semi-auto which are damn near as deadly and not that difficult to convert.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #5)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 12:04 PM

69. Not as if finds expedient

The courts will overturn anything that does not have a rational basis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #69)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 05:21 PM

71. Who says expediency can't be rational?

"Rationality" covers a multitude of sins, and what is rational today may not be considered so tomorrow. And even if the government were to act so blatantly irrationally as to cause the courts to overturn a law, it can still be enforced until overturned, which would be rather unfortunate if the results were permanent to the affected individual.

In any event, should the government determine that an individual's exercise of right is outweighed by a common good (which is a subject of interpretation and opinion, after all), it can refuse to allow said individual to exercise that right.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to imanamerican63 (Original post)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 12:46 PM

7. I had to get a background check to be a substitute teacher

But to get an assault weapon at a gun show I don't need a background check. Something's wrong with the system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kimbutgar (Reply #7)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 12:53 PM

9. Most likely you will need a background check.

Now days only licensed dealers sell at gun shows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #9)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 12:56 PM

10. In some states you can outright buy a gun without a background check

Or buy a gun in a parking lot from a stranger

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kimbutgar (Reply #10)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 12:59 PM

11. Yes.They are called private sales

The solution is to do what my state does and require a background check for ever sale. But it has to be done at the state level.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kimbutgar (Reply #10)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 12:59 PM

12. Just as you can teach a five year-old in a parking lot to read!

 

And, without a background check! Well, that's how the NRA be confusing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scscholar (Reply #12)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 01:03 PM

13. Ignore hack's comments!

He is trying to start something that is not there!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kimbutgar (Reply #10)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 01:05 PM

15. That is really fucked up! Yet you won't see gun humpers complaining

 

that is how they usually buy their Precious weapons...in a parking lot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #15)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 02:02 PM

21. Got any facts to back that up?

All four of my ARs were purchased through dealers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #21)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 04:12 PM

30. Here is one of several examples I found on the Internet for a tv station


http://kdvr.com/2013/04/29/we-bought-a-semi-automatic-uzi-in-the-parking-lot-of-babies-r-us/

This happens all the time, I live in California and saw a similar news report recently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #9)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 11:58 PM

54. Not true. An occasional seller can set up a table, drape a confederate flag over it

 

to attract browsers, and sell without a background check. And any yahoo can drop his tailgate in the parking lot and sell away, again without a background check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kimbutgar (Reply #7)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 04:14 PM

31. Don't need a background check to be a tutor.

Or a parent. Or teach Sunday school (or Sabbath school). Or even Korean school, like some students I knew in California had gone to.

Just when the state or school district hires you or decides for matters of child welfare (or coercing a state monopoly) do you need certification. Then they make the rules for what you need to do to be hired. Pass a subject test? A pedagogy test? Have so many hours student teaching? So many college credits? Go through a registered, certified preparation program? Get your masters within X number of years? Get so many "credits" of professional development per year?

Didn't used to be that way. A few years ago Texas lost a mess of substitutes. They required that subs have so many college credits. My school literally had no warm adult bodies to put into some classrooms on high-teacher-absence days that year. They called in teachers from conference periods, they put administrators up through the principal in the classrooms, and then they moved sub-less classes into rooms with a sub. To reduce the agony to some schools, they assigned equal numbers of subs to schools to keep the "good" and well-behaved schools from having enough subs while the tough schools had nearly none.

But like voting, shacking up, or posting online, gun ownership isn't something the state does for you. You're not using state resources, like when you drive on public roads. There's a fundamental logical difference between the two. One right you just have; it is inalienable. The other right is provided by the state; it's utterly alienable.

If I owned 20k acres and wanted to, I could have cars and big rigs that are uninsured, unregistered, unhindered by safety inspections and speed limits and even let my 12-year-old drive them (as long as he's not hurt or put routinely at risk). I put them on the public roads, and suddenly I'm bound by all the laws stipulating conditions for using the public resource.

If I want to homeschool my kid, only in the most anti-homeschool states would I need to do anything like obtain certification. Even then, it's just if I want to not send my kid to a registered school. What I teach him on the weekend is entirely up to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kimbutgar (Reply #7)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 03:16 AM

61. It depends ...

But to get an assault weapon at a gun show I don't need a background check. Something's wrong with the system.

What state do you live in? You can't sell weapons privately without a background check in eight states, and you can't buy a gun from a private seller outside your home state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to imanamerican63 (Original post)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 01:03 PM

14. Well you see...gunz are special...they get to be treated like The Precious. Better not to ask.

 


It seems gun humpers have incredibly thin skin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to imanamerican63 (Original post)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 02:42 PM

22. Until you have a bad day and run over some children

and then crash into a tunnel that has a sign saying no trucks with hazardous or explosive materials, and then all hell breaks loose.

Background checks can't predict the future. Many mass shooters don't have gun crimes in their past. I would gladly block sales to anyone who is under investigation for supporting ISIS or even domestic hate groups like the KKK, but that is getting into someone's thoughts to predict future crimes.

For the record, I am in favor of stronger background checks. But it is important to know that they have very serious limitations and can give a false sense of security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to imanamerican63 (Original post)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 02:45 PM

23. Because the NRA says so, buddy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to imanamerican63 (Original post)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 03:02 PM

25. Look what you have to do to be a barber or cosmetologist in California!

I mean, the worst that can happen is an unsanitary stylist could spread lice, which is gross but hardly in the same class as slaughtering a few dozen people.

http://www.barbercosmo.ca.gov/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to imanamerican63 (Original post)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 03:05 PM

27. What laws are the NRA not following?

and aren't there plenty of laws gun owners have to follow?


Or just citizens in general???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #27)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 03:11 PM

28. What I should have said....

NRA blocking any new laws being passed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to imanamerican63 (Reply #28)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 03:54 PM

29. 22.000 Federal, State and Local gun laws and regulations so far

 

What are they missing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #29)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 10:42 PM

48. Very likely not effective and not consistent.

It's that quality over quantity thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crunchy Frog (Reply #48)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 11:11 PM

50. Good, let us know which ones you're wiling to get rid of before we pass more ineffective laws.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to imanamerican63 (Original post)


Response to Name removed (Reply #32)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 06:10 PM

36. I think you're trolling.

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Reply #32)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 06:53 PM

43. The fewer guns, the better.

But, yeah, as noted, your post appears to be simply aimed at increasing the hyperbole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Reply #32)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 07:07 PM

46. Should be suffecient....unfortunately, they often aren't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to imanamerican63 (Original post)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 04:42 PM

33. i remember WELL REGULATED is in the 2nd amendment as well. WELL REGULATED.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pansypoo53219 (Reply #33)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 06:13 PM

37. ah, i think you forget

that term must adhere to the 1790 meaning ONLY. it means "functioning properly", not regulated well.

of course, the definition of militia is mutable. it expands and changes form to suit the moment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxsolomon (Reply #37)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 12:00 AM

55. Almost 50% of the current Supreme Court doesn't see it your way.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #55)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:51 AM

72. i didn't add :sarcasm:

one can only hope that number goes up.

I want to see ownership conditional on militia participation. marching up and down a field all weekend long, twice a year. at your own expense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pansypoo53219 (Reply #33)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 09:25 AM

65. That's true, but....

 

At least for now, the SCotUS has held that the 2nd is an individual right. It can be effectively argued that the introductory clause is explanatory, not restrictive. In any case, I think it may be a while before Heller is overturned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to imanamerican63 (Original post)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 05:04 PM

34. The Orlando shooter passed two background checks.

And for a time provided security at a government building. You seem to have left that fact out of the OP....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #34)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 06:52 PM

42. We haven't implemented background checks for guns that mean jack.

You seem to have left that fact out of your response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #42)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 06:59 PM

44. What are background checks "that mean jack"?

I have passed a background check for any gun that I have bought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #44)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 07:05 PM

45. Of course you have.

That doesn't means anything.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Background checks, as currently implemented, don't look into much.

How is it this so hard to understand?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #45)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 03:02 AM

59. Not much.

Background checks, as currently implemented, don't look into much.

Criminal record and mental health history: What else should they look at? My credit rating? What Pay-Per-Views I've watched?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #42)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 08:47 AM

62. I think people don't understand what the background check is.

Unlike in employment or areas that are distinctly privileges like security clearances or working with children, the government is limited to conducting background checks that only check for prior events that disqualified someone with a due process event, like a criminal conviction. An official can't look at someone and make a subjective call based on personal life as the person has the right to challenge such a finding, but no such process exists in the current background check system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to imanamerican63 (Original post)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 06:27 PM

38. Because of the 2nd Amendment

And to provide for our Well Regulated Militia--AKA the fat, drunk guys running around in the woods shooting at raccoons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to imanamerican63 (Original post)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 06:51 PM

41. Tell it to a health care provider, hell, tell it to a day care provider.

If people like you, who serve this country and nation with valuable labor must go through such checks, certainly it shouldn't be a big deal for a gun owner to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to imanamerican63 (Original post)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 11:21 PM

51. Every sale of a new gun goes through a FFL and a federal background check.

 

Every sale of a new gun goes from the manufacturer to a federal firearms licensee. The FFL is required to submit the purchaser to a federal background check through the ATF. The ATF performs the background check and either approves, declines, or puts a hold on the transaction for up to 72 hours.

The federal government collects an excise tax of 11% from the manufacturer on each firearm.

That is the law nationally.

After that, if the gun is sold to a resident of another state, federal law requires transfer through a federal firearms licensee.

The initial purchaser may give or sell to a resident of the same state without going through a federal firearms licensee, unless their state imposes that requirement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jtx (Reply #51)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 02:09 AM

57. Actually,

The FBI runs the background check, not the ATF. NICS is part of the FBI.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to imanamerican63 (Original post)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 11:45 AM

68. hell, i had to get a background check to be a volunteer.

a hospice volunteer. wrap your head around that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to imanamerican63 (Original post)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 12:51 PM

70. There is no constitutional right to drive a semi truck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread