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?
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.
On the force in the eighties, full fbi check, fingerprints
ALL personal weapons registered with the PD.
like we have today
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.
Are you saying, if I bought a gun made in my home state, I would be exempt from a background check?
new guns are purchased through dealers. Which are federally licensed.
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
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.
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.
(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.
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.
Last edited Sat Jun 18, 2016, 01:52 AM - Edit history (1)
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.
... 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.
Last edited Fri Jun 17, 2016, 12:50 PM - Edit history (1)
It should be our constitutional right to protect us from those who should never have or own a gun!
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.
Since the 1930s. Not to mentionn, no new civilian automatic rigles have been manufactured or new ones sold since 1986.
"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.
But to get an assault weapon at a gun show I don't need a background check. Something's wrong with the system.
Or buy a gun in a parking lot from a stranger
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.
And, without a background check! Well, that's how the NRA be confusing it.
that is how they usually buy their Precious weapons...in a parking lot.
This happens all the time, I live in California and saw a similar news report recently.
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.
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.
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.
It seems gun humpers have incredibly thin skin.
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.
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.
and aren't there plenty of laws gun owners have to follow?
Or just citizens in general???
But, yeah, as noted, your post appears to be simply aimed at increasing the hyperbole.
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.
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.
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.
And for a time provided security at a government building. You seem to have left that fact out of the OP....
You seem to have left that fact out of your response.
I have passed a background check for any gun that I have bought.
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?
Criminal record and mental health history: What else should they look at? My credit rating? What Pay-Per-Views I've watched?
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.
And to provide for our Well Regulated Militia--AKA the fat, drunk guys running around in the woods shooting at raccoons.
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.
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.
a hospice volunteer. wrap your head around that.