PDA

View Full Version : Backgrounds


Falconis
02-02-2011, 9:20 PM
Ok so I am finding out I'm a little more naive in this area than I thought I was. What are the issues with background checks and firearms? Aside from the papertrail that may be created on you showing what you own. I understand the dangers assoicated with that and the history of that sort of thing.

On the same note, does anyone actually believe that there is no such thing as a prohibited person?

advocatusdiaboli
02-02-2011, 9:30 PM
whether you like it or not, we as a society have, in general and in an law, embraced the idea that there are prohibited persons (felons, mentally unstable, domestic abusers, etc.) and it is unlikely that will change. I figure the Founders counted on a social peer pressure to achieve the same end and, having found that lacking in our increasingly less connected society, we passed laws instead. So I don't think you'll find much ground to fight it.

dantodd
02-02-2011, 9:35 PM
It is difficult for me to understand why you think it is acceptable to have to prove your identity or eligibility to exercise a constitutional right. If you could explain why one would need to undergo a background check to prove they are not a convicted libeler in order to buy a printer I could figure out where we are not seeing eye to eye.

Lone_Gunman
02-02-2011, 10:08 PM
Ok so I am finding out I'm a little more naive in this area than I thought I was. What are the issues with background checks and firearms? Aside from the papertrail that may be created on you showing what you own. I understand the dangers assoicated with that and the history of that sort of thing.

On the same note, does anyone actually believe that there is no such thing as a prohibited person?

Was there such a thing as a prohibited person in 1776? How about 1830? How about 1901? How about 1950?

Why now?

Falconis
02-02-2011, 10:19 PM
Sorry I should have stated my position here in this thread as well. I did it in another post. I personally do not have a problem with background checks. I do have a problem with gun registration because of how it can be abused much like anything else and has been in long distant past and even in recent past. I do not believe people who have committed certain crimes (another argument) or the mentally unstable should (the word "not" was deleted) be able to posses firearms. This goes back to my belief in that protected rights are to be used and not abused to further a person's own selfish needs. The fact that protected rights are abused is also another argument in of itself.

When you say undergo a background check, I'll assume you mean a quick check to make sure you are not on the no no list. Not a full on go to your entire family and grill them type thing. As for the liberler portion, I am not gonna start comparing apples and oranges. But to stay on topic, do you (DanTodd) think it it's acceptable and reasonable for, say a felon who is a known gangbanger with 25 robberies on his rap sheet and on parole, to go into a gunshop and walk out with a firearm? (ignore the fact that he should stay in prison) If yes, why? If no, how would you stop him from doing that? I personally don't think every one of them will keep out because of their personal integrity.

I think this goes back to the stewardship and responsibilty I personally feel we have with firearms. Allowing mechanisms or not putting in place mechanisms for dangers to societies to be able to posses these with ease is unthinkable. That's me though. Call me all the names you want, but the way I figure it I think being reasonable has to come in somewhere.

rugershooter
02-02-2011, 10:24 PM
It is difficult for me to understand why you think it is acceptable to have to prove your identity or eligibility to exercise a constitutional right. If you could explain why one would need to undergo a background check to prove they are not a convicted libeler in order to buy a printer I could figure out where we are not seeing eye to eye.

+1. People don't understand what freedom is....they only think of it in terms of "loopholes". There's the gun show loophole, open carry loophole, ammunition loophole, etc. People seem to think that either 1) the law must specifically allow an action for it to be legal, or 2) they must obtain some type of government license to do something.

Falconis
02-02-2011, 10:26 PM
Was there such a thing as a prohibited person in 1776? How about 1830? How about 1901? How about 1950?

Why now?

So you don't believe there are people who are dangers to society who use and abuse firearms today and do nothing but cause urban terror? Do you believe they should be able to own firearms like everyone else?

Do you believe just because a problem did not exist 200 years ago and is relavant today, we should do nothing about it?

If you do, we'll have to politely agree to disagree.

As to your historical question, I really don't know when restrictions were placed on certain individuals.

dantodd
02-02-2011, 10:27 PM
The problem is that only law abiding people will go through the background check, gang bangers with a rap sheet will break the law and but one on the street. Which, means your proposed law doesn't gave the desired effect but does burden the law abiding.
Why do you feel the printer example is apples to oranges?

Alaric
02-02-2011, 10:40 PM
Reasonable is a subjective test. More to the point it can open all sorts of doors to abuse by political, racial, social and other prejudices either inherent to or by means of bureaucratic weakness within the system itself.

No one in their right mind, not the staunchest 2nd Amd. advocate, wants a psychopath owning a gun. The problem is that "psychopath" wasn't defined when The Constitution was written. In fact, the definition of "mentally ill" continues to change, sometimes dramatically, in a legal sense, even recently. The entire concept of a "background check", therefore becomes suspect and ill-defined. This isn't even taking into account issues of drug use (what constitutes abuse or addiction?), domestic violence (and the potential for retributive abuse), and the ever-so Christian premise of redemption which seems so very lacking in the reality of our current legal system.

So, to boil it down, who makes the rules? Who gets to proclaim you fit to own a gun? Do you have a means to fight a denial to own a gun by means of a jury trial by your peers? Do you have the right to face your accusers in open court should you be denied? The answer to all the above questions leaves us wanting for a better system of background checks, or a temptation to do away with them altogether, and for good reason.

Falconis
02-02-2011, 10:48 PM
Printers to firearms? I won't argue a libeler with a printer can destroy lives but it's in a different context than a parolee at large with a gun. I am sure we can atleast agree there. Then comes the list of differences.

I guess the question I have for you is that do you believe EVERYONE has a right to own a firearm?

Assuming the check is a enter information into a computer and wait for the 30second response, is it really that inconvient? I honestly do believe conducting a background check does keep most of the prohibited people from buying firearms themselves. I do believe it does work to an extent. Not a whole lot that can be done about less than scrupulous dealers, but for the most part I do believe it works.

The check doesnt prohibit the person from owning the firearm and if done correctly just delays the person slightly. Time I usually spend throwing ammo into the cart.

rugershooter
02-02-2011, 10:50 PM
Reasonable is a subjective test. More to the point it can open all sorts of doors to abuse by political, racial, social and other prejudices either inherent to or by means of bureaucratic weakness within the system itself.

No one in their right mind, not the staunchest 2nd Amd. advocate, wants a psychopath owning a gun. The problem is that "psychopath" wasn't defined when The Constitution was written. In fact, the definition of "mentally ill" continues to change, sometimes dramatically, in a legal sense, even recently. The entire concept of a "background check", therefore becomes suspect and ill-defined. This isn't even taking into account issues of drug use (what constitutes abuse or addiction?), domestic violence (and the potential for retributive abuse), and the ever-so Christian premise of redemption which seems so very lacking in the reality of our current legal system.

So, to boil it down, who makes the rules? Who gets to proclaim you fit to own a gun? Do you have a means to fight a denial to own a gun by means of a jury trial by your peers? Do you have the right to face your accusers in open court should you be denied? The answer to all the above questions leaves us wanting for a better system of background checks, or a temptation to do away with them altogether, and for good reason.

People who want to give the government more power many times don't realize that the use of that power will depend on who's administering it and who's interpreting the laws. Once the government has the power to deny 2A rights to "undesirables", the specific laws and definitions of those undesirables is going to be dependant on which law makers are in power. For example, mentally ill people can't own guns. But the definition of mentally ill can (and has, although I haven't really looked into it) changed throughout time. As you say, it boils down to who makes the rules. Once they have the power to limit the right based, the standards of the limitations are dependant on whoever can make the standards at time time.

dantodd
02-02-2011, 10:52 PM
If you actually believe that a background check will stymie those intent on using a firearm to break the law then there is really no room for further discussion.

Falconis
02-02-2011, 10:55 PM
Reasonable is a subjective test. More to the point it can open all sorts of doors to abuse by political, racial, social and other prejudices either inherent to or by means of bureaucratic weakness within the system itself.

No one in their right mind, not the staunchest 2nd Amd. advocate, wants a psychopath owning a gun. The problem is that "psychopath" wasn't defined when The Constitution was written. In fact, the definition of "mentally ill" continues to change, sometimes dramatically, in a legal sense, even recently. The entire concept of a "background check", therefore becomes suspect and ill-defined. This isn't even taking into account issues of drug use (what constitutes abuse or addiction?), domestic violence (and the potential for retributive abuse), and the ever-so Christian premise of redemption which seems so very lacking in the reality of our current legal system.

So, to boil it down, who makes the rules? Who gets to proclaim you fit to own a gun? Do you have a means to fight a denial to own a gun by means of a jury trial by your peers? Do you have the right to face your accusers in open court should you be denied? The answer to all the above questions leaves us wanting for a better system of background checks, or a temptation to do away with them altogether, and for good reason.

this is the kind of argument and explanation I am looking for. thanks.

I get the feeling most of us agree there are people out there who should not be allowed near a gun. I also think most of us can agree on what some of those requirements could be, not all but some. I could be wrong here. Just the mechanism to keep them out is in question.

I dont have all the answers to Alaric's questions. I can tell you as subjective as definitions can be, can anyone argue that there are "prohibited" people and there should be no mechanism in place to stop them?

rugershooter
02-02-2011, 10:58 PM
Printers to firearms? I won't argue a libeler with a printer can destroy lives but it's in a different context than a parolee at large with a gun. I am sure we can atleast agree there. Then comes the list of differences.

I guess the question I have for you is that do you believe EVERYONE has a right to own a firearm?

Assuming the check is a enter information into a computer and wait for the 30second response, is it really that inconvient? I honestly do believe conducting a background check does keep most of the prohibited people from buying firearms themselves. I do believe it does work to an extent. Not a whole lot that can be done about less than scrupulous dealers, but for the most part I do believe it works.

The check doesnt prohibit the person from owning the firearm and if done correctly just delays the person slightly. Time I usually spend throwing ammo into the cart.

Whether or not background checks should be done, or even if there should be a prohibited persons list, should not be based on convenience. IMO, it has nothing to do with it, a violation of a right is still a violation of a right regardless of whether it takes a few minutes or a few hours or a few days. It's akin to saying that I should just allow the police to search my vehicle if they ask since I shouldn't have anything to worry about if I'm not doing anything illegal.

And a question to those more knowledgable than me; is there any way of finding out how many NICS requests were denied in a given period of time? I.E, people who were denied a gun purchase due to failing the background check.

Lone_Gunman
02-02-2011, 11:41 PM
So you don't believe there are people who are dangers to society who use and abuse firearms today and do nothing but cause urban terror? Do you believe they should be able to own firearms like everyone else?

Do you believe just because a problem did not exist 200 years ago and is relavant today, we should do nothing about it?

If you do, we'll have to politely agree to disagree.

As to your historical question, I really don't know when restrictions were placed on certain individuals.

I believe there would be a lot fewer dangers to society if the only gun law was that in order to carry a gun it needs to be in a holster. There have and always will be predators among us. I believe we would be a much safer society if more of us were armed on a regular basis. You seem to have fallen for the gun grabbers line that laws stop criminals. It isn't so.

gunsmith
02-03-2011, 12:44 AM
people for "background" checks are ignorant.
freedom is dangerous, an AZ cop passed all the checks and raped a bunch of women.

laws against ppt are class warfare against rural people, why should I have to drive 300 miles because I buy my neighbors .22? ( no other way to do a background check where I live)

freedom is dangerous, criminals ignore laws so by creating more laws you infringe on my rights.

its called freedom, if you hate it please report to north korea - no crime there.

ITS CALLED THE BILL OF RIGHTS - NOT THE BILL OF POLICE STATE OR THE BILL OF NEEDS ... WHY DO YOU SEEK TO INCREASE THE PRISON POPULATION?

jtmkinsd
02-03-2011, 8:20 AM
this is the kind of argument and explanation I am looking for. thanks.

I get the feeling most of us agree there are people out there who should not be allowed near a gun. I also think most of us can agree on what some of those requirements could be, not all but some. I could be wrong here. Just the mechanism to keep them out is in question.

I dont have all the answers to Alaric's questions. I can tell you as subjective as definitions can be, can anyone argue that there are "prohibited" people and there should be no mechanism in place to stop them?

There are other things in life certain people should not be allowed to do IMHO, such as have children, drive a car, cook meth in their kitchen. Yet they still can do whatever they want....no matter what they've done in the past which would lead a reasonable person to conclude they should not be able to do such things in the future. None of the things I mentioned above is close to a Constitutionally protected right. Yet those things are treated as some untouchable "right" to which even the most undeserving can engage in.

"Shall not be infringed." seems pretty clear to me. Wanna do a background check? Fine...in this day and age, it can be done in minutes to make sure the buyer isn't wanted in 7 States. "Cooling off period?" Maybe for a first time buyer, but IMHO it's an ignorant law with no real benefit. If I already own firearms, why do the powers that be think I'll only go buy a new firearm to commit my crime?

Helmke, the most befuddling and happless of foes, has even said "We will never be able to keep guns out of the hands of criminals." So why do they continually focus on keeping them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens? It is so counter intuitive it makes my head feel like it's going to explode.

pointedstick
02-03-2011, 8:35 AM
Sorry I should have stated my position here in this thread as well. I did it in another post. I personally do not have a problem with background checks. I do have a problem with gun registration because of how it can be abused much like anything else and has been in long distant past and even in recent past. I do not believe people who have committed certain crimes (another argument) or the mentally unstable should not be able to posses firearms. This goes back to my belief in that protected rights are to be used and not abused to further a person's own selfish needs. The fact that protected rights are abused is also another argument in of itself.

You can believe whatever you want. But the way our society works today, this is not a common attitude supported by the laws. If you want to work to get rid of background checks and the idea of prohibited persons, more power to you, but that's going to take overturning the Brady Law and the GCA, both of which are far, far in the future if they ever happen at all. Right now we need to focus on the basics of the right and help those who are trying to establish that the "bear" part of the second amendment has meaning. Once we have "keep" and "bear", and establish "common use", we can go after all these ridiculous laws that don't stop anyone ill-intentioned from doing anything at all.

Keep in mind that background checks are a two-edged sword. They may be an infringement, but the majority of the population is pretty much content to let us do what we want once they find out we've undergone multiple background checks. I've had great luck telling people who are just gun-ignorant about the multiple background checks I and every other lawful gun owner have undergone. They get this "really?" look on their face and it makes them feel better.

dantodd
02-03-2011, 9:56 AM
I believe there would be a lot fewer dangers to society if the only gun law was that in order to carry a gun it needs to be in a holster.

I know a retired cop who has carried off duty "thug style" for over 30 years with not a single issue. He has recently moved to a small .38 semi-auto and a small frame revolver both of which he pocket carries wrapped in his handkerchief. I introduced him to a decent pocket holster recently and I think he might carry in that now.

Falconis
02-03-2011, 2:51 PM
I am not saying a background check will predict a person's future behavior. Just merely stating that a person who is mentally unstable or a person with a felony background should not be able to purchase a firearm.

I'm also not talking about keeping firearms out of the hands of the law abiding either. Never have I said that. I have said that something should be in place to keep them out of the hands of the "prohibited". While we can argue for days on end what a prohibited person is, I am talking about the common ones we can all agree with. I know there are atleast 1 or 2 of those.

The argument gunsmith brought up, as argumentative as it was, is a good point about people living out in the boonies and no where near civilization.
I also realize many people in power abuse their positions. Nevermind the priests, teachers, uncles, grandfathers, swim instructors, the hot teachers that prey on 16 year olds, other cops besides the one you mentioned, etc and so forth.

Last I checked cooking meth in your kitchen is illegal. It is done, but it is illegal.

YubaRiver
02-03-2011, 3:12 PM
"I am not saying a background check will predict a person's future behavior. Just merely stating that a person who is mentally unstable or a person with a felony background should not be able to purchase a firearm."

Pretty black and white. Do you not see shades of grey? Lots of cops, military,
firemen etc. pop a prozac with their coffee in the morning. Their very jobs can create "mental unstable" problems for them.

Some felons were non violent when they offended and now need personal protection after they have finished their time in prison. Like another poster
said, don't they have a chance for redemption?

jtmkinsd
02-03-2011, 3:18 PM
Last I checked cooking meth in your kitchen is illegal. It is done, but it is illegal.

And do laws against it stop anyone? Would a background check at the grocery store help stop cooking meth in the kitchen?

You make my point for me very eloquently. You say "it's illegal" so off-handedly, like it's second nature. Why is it then that it wasn't good enough to make murder illegal, they had to start "regulating" the tools people use to commit the crime. Would you be comfortable with the outright ban of automobiles for anyone...get rid of them completely for everyone...because of the number of drunk driving deaths every year?

Falconis
02-03-2011, 3:37 PM
Hey JTM, I really wanna stick to the issue of backgrounds and guns like I told dantodd. I don't wanna get sidetracked into the what about this and that argument. Some are valid comparisons and some aren't. I don't want to get into an argument over that.

As to Yuba's response, their chance at redemption is probably a something I would have to ponder. I believe there are things that people should be given the chance to be redeemed for, others not so much so. But that's a personal belief of mine and IMO another argument. Also as for your argument for what it is (prozac popping), they may be doing that, they may not. But they aren't placed on this list to be prohibited nor have they done anything to be placed on it. I know just means they havent been caught. But yeah, there's shade of gray in everything. I am old enough to realize that.

But to ask another question as I have asked before, do you believe a person with multiple felony convictions for armed robbery, burglary, and drug sales deserves a chance to purchase a firearm after everything he did as an adult?

Falconis
02-03-2011, 3:37 PM
You can believe whatever you want. But the way our society works today, this is not a common attitude supported by the laws. If you want to work to get rid of background checks and the idea of prohibited persons, more power to you, but that's going to take overturning the Brady Law and the GCA, both of which are far, far in the future if they ever happen at all. Right now we need to focus on the basics of the right and help those who are trying to establish that the "bear" part of the second amendment has meaning. Once we have "keep" and "bear", and establish "common use", we can go after all these ridiculous laws that don't stop anyone ill-intentioned from doing anything at all.

Keep in mind that background checks are a two-edged sword. They may be an infringement, but the majority of the population is pretty much content to let us do what we want once they find out we've undergone multiple background checks. I've had great luck telling people who are just gun-ignorant about the multiple background checks I and every other lawful gun owner have undergone. They get this "really?" look on their face and it makes them feel better.

fixed my original post to make more sense. sorry, I think there may have been some confusion there.

Falconis
02-03-2011, 3:41 PM
I know a retired cop who has carried off duty "thug style" for over 30 years with not a single issue. He has recently moved to a small .38 semi-auto and a small frame revolver both of which he pocket carries wrapped in his handkerchief. I introduced him to a decent pocket holster recently and I think he might carry in that now.

I'm actually a believer in this too. The arm everyone thing.

jtmkinsd
02-03-2011, 3:48 PM
Not being argumentative...just asking questions related to the subject. The problem with background checks are they are not necessarily about stopping criminals. Here in CA they will deny you your 2A right if you owe the DMV money...no joke, and nobody bats an eye. At some point it stops being about preventing criminals from obtaining guns, and starts being a tool for the state to bring in revenue. (red light cameras anyone?)

stix213
02-03-2011, 4:05 PM
If this thread is talking about people's opinions on background checks & registration, I have to admit I am not against background checks. In fact I would be fine if a background check was required on every gun purchase even private parties....

What I have a problem with is how they are currently handled, at what point the background check is run, and what constitutes a denial.

For example, I would like to see a website or phone number that anyone who sells a firearm can access without going to a gun store. Provide a bit of info on a POTENTIAL buyer, and find out if they are good to go to buy a gun.

Note I said potential... I don't think the background check should be connected to a sale action. There should be no record that a private sale in fact occurred. I think for example if you were interested in looking at a gun, you would send your name and a couple other bits of personal info to a seller as a first step, they do the quick check, and go on talking to you about the gun. Then when you meet to look at the gun and potentially buy it, you just make sure you have an ID that matches what you gave the seller in the first place. And you should not for any reason have to go into a gun store to do a private sale. Going to a gun store accomplishes nothing anyways, since if the seller wanted to sell to someone prohibited they can just hand them the gun without going to the store right now as it is. Also I think running the background check itself should not mean at all that any sale actually took place, just that you were checking that they COULD buy so as not waste your time talking to them. If a system can't be setup like this then there should be no background checks.

Also, I think the only things that should put you on a prohibited list are Felonies and being insane. There should not be any prohibited misdemeanors. If the crime is supposedly bad enough to ban someone from exercising a fundamental right, then you should be charged with a felony. If its not bad enough to be a felony, then its not bad enough to deny constitutional rights, period. Even DV charges. If it wasn't bad enough to be a felony, it wasn't bad enough to take your guns.

Also TRO's are a bunch of crap, since they require no actual evidence to get and don't allow you to even defend yourself.

EDIT: I reread that and realize it was a bit of a rant, sorry :p

Falconis
02-03-2011, 4:31 PM
Not being argumentative...just asking questions related to the subject. The problem with background checks are they are not necessarily about stopping criminals. Here in CA they will deny you your 2A right if you owe the DMV money...no joke, and nobody bats an eye. At some point it stops being about preventing criminals from obtaining guns, and starts being a tool for the state to bring in revenue. (red light cameras anyone?)

OK the DMV thing is just plain wrong and definitely not (what I think) the background is intended for.

dustoff31
02-03-2011, 5:36 PM
Not being argumentative...just asking questions related to the subject. The problem with background checks are they are not necessarily about stopping criminals. Here in CA they will deny you your 2A right if you owe the DMV money...no joke, and nobody bats an eye. At some point it stops being about preventing criminals from obtaining guns, and starts being a tool for the state to bring in revenue. (red light cameras anyone?)

Yes, but to be fair, that's not a problem with the background check itself.

That's a problem with the state, and they way they have elected to carry out the process. They don't have to do it that way. The could just let dealer's call the NICS center like most other states.

jtmkinsd
02-03-2011, 5:45 PM
Yes, but to be fair, that's not a problem with the background check itself.

That's a problem with the state, and they way they have elected to carry out the process. They don't have to do it that way. The could just let dealer's call the NICS center like most other states.

Oh I agree. But where does "background" get defined...and to what extent is a person "prohibited"...that list grows and grows and more and more people are stripped of their 2A right without due process and by simple government fiat.

12voltguy
02-03-2011, 5:56 PM
like has been stated over & over in all these threads
the background check does not stop a criminal from getting a gun.
it may slow them down a lil, but really just cost us normal people unnessary time & $$.
make the penelty for a criminal getting a gun stiffer & that might help some, but people murder each other everyday, laws don't stop it from happening everyday of the year.

dustoff31
02-03-2011, 6:01 PM
Oh I agree. But where does "background" get defined...and to what extent is a person "prohibited"...that list grows and grows and more and more people are stripped of their 2A right without due process and by simple government fiat.

Perhaps that's a future mission for CGF. To the best of my knowledge an expired DL, or overdue car registration does not make one a prohibited possessor.

Actually, the more I think about it. IANAL, but the CA background/DROS system seems pretty ripe for a lawsuit. Say one has an expired DL. DOJ doesn't tell you can't buy a gun. They are in fact telling the dealing he can't sell it to you. Kinda sounds like a restraint of trade of something to me.

jtmkinsd
02-03-2011, 6:16 PM
Perhaps that's a future mission for CGF. To the best of my knowledge an expired DL, or overdue car registration does not make one a prohibited possessor.

Actually, the more I think about it. IANAL, but the CA background/DROS system seems pretty ripe for a lawsuit. Say one has an expired DL. DOJ doesn't tell you can't buy a gun. They are in fact telling the dealing he can't sell it to you. Kinda sounds like a restraint of trade of something to me.

That's all for people with larger brainpans than mine :D

gunsmith
02-03-2011, 6:42 PM
before I would accept background checks I need background checks for all politicians and I need to know what drugs illegal/legal they are using.

... screw it, I will never accept laws against ppt, most rural folks will simply ignore whatever the morons in the cities tell us to do for our own good.

In a few years computers will be able to run garage machining operations and rural folks will simply make their own guns , of course to feel safe libby will insist on registering computers.

Falconis
02-03-2011, 9:38 PM
like has been stated over & over in all these threads
the background check does not stop a criminal from getting a gun.
it may slow them down a lil, but really just cost us normal people unnessary time & $$.
make the penelty for a criminal getting a gun stiffer & that might help some, but people murder each other everyday, laws don't stop it from happening everyday of the year.

You can make the penalties stiffer, but they keep paroling those aholes everyday. It would be nice if they mandatorily had to serve 80 to 90 percent of their sentence before they had the option of parole.

rugershooter
02-04-2011, 8:10 AM
this is the kind of argument and explanation I am looking for. thanks.

I get the feeling most of us agree there are people out there who should not be allowed near a gun. I also think most of us can agree on what some of those requirements could be, not all but some. I could be wrong here. Just the mechanism to keep them out is in question.

I dont have all the answers to Alaric's questions. I can tell you as subjective as definitions can be, can anyone argue that there are "prohibited" people and there should be no mechanism in place to stop them?

Your entire thinking is completely backwards here. The government isn't supposed to "allow" me to own guns....that's exactly what the 2nd Amendment was designed to protect against. To paraphrase it, the amendment means that I have the right to own and carry guns and the government can't take that right. Part or taking that right is "allowing" certain people to own guns and denying other their rights. The historical beginings of gun (and weapon) control have been discriminatory against people who the law makers didn't see fit to own weapons. Just look at the English Bill of Rights of 1689; it only specifies that Protestant Christians "may have arms for their defense sutable for their condition and as allowed by law". Gun laws in the United States also have racist origins intented to keep guns away from the recently freed slaves and black people. If the founding fathers wanted to make exceptions to the 2A, don't you think they would've written them in? The exercise of a right means not having to get the approval or permission from another entity-whether that's another individual or a government- to exercise that right. Background checks are, at their most basic level, gun permits that the government issues to people it deems fit to own guns. That's no different than CCW permits, FFLs or any other government permission slip to obtain/carry guns. It's completely contrary to the 2nd Amendment.

Falconis
02-04-2011, 1:16 PM
So what you're sayng Ruger, is that everyone and anyone has a right to own and posses a weapon no matter what they do with it? I'll agree to disagree with you on your above statement about my line of thought being backwards.

BoxesOfLiberty
02-04-2011, 1:32 PM
So you don't believe there are people who are dangers to society who use and abuse firearms today and do nothing but cause urban terror? Do you believe they should be able to own firearms like everyone else?

Do you believe just because a problem did not exist 200 years ago and is relavant today, we should do nothing about it?

If you do, we'll have to politely agree to disagree.

As to your historical question, I really don't know when restrictions were placed on certain individuals.

Sadly there are people who have demonstrated that they represent a significant and ongoing danger to their fellow man.

Such people must be segregated from society (i.e. incarcerated).

If a person is not so great a threat that he needs to be incarcerated, or it cannot be proved that he is, then he should not be prohibited from participating fully in society and should not have his rights (including the god-given right to self-defense) trampled upon.

This isn't just a philosophical point -- it is a practical one, since it is plain to see that persons who are inclined to the commission of anti-social acts somehow find ways to possess firearms, controlled substances, and anything else their hearts desire regardless of what prohibitions are erected to the contrary.

putput
02-04-2011, 1:36 PM
I think it's backwards that the government is asking us to prove that we are eligible vs keeping the ineligible separate or clearly "marked" as such. I'm thinking ankle bracelets. They did the thing that lost them their rights...

BoxesOfLiberty
02-04-2011, 1:41 PM
I'm thinking ankle bracelets. They did the thing that lost them their rights...

How will an ankle bracelet prevent anti-social behavior? Wouldn't a jail cell be better?

If an individual is so dangerous that he can't be trusted to have a gun, how can he be trusted to walk around in society where nothing but the honor system is preventing him from getting his hands on a gun, a knife, a baseball bat, an SUV, or some other WMD?

And if he isn't so dangerous that he should be in a jail cell, why are we infringing on his rights?

J.D.Allen
02-04-2011, 1:59 PM
So what you're sayng Ruger, is that everyone and anyone has a right to own and posses a weapon no matter what they do with it?

No, That's not necessarily what he is saying. It can be plenty illegal for a violent felon to own a gun. That does not mean you need background checks. You can have a law that says it's illegal for certain people to have guns without harassing everyone who wants to buy one. Because, and I know this is hard to grasp but...BACKGROUND CHECKS STOP EXACTLY NO ONE FROM GETTING A GUN. PERIOD. If the cops catch a prohibited person with a gun, throw the book at him. I see it all the time in the courts. Felon in possession of guns/ammo is a fairly common charge. Which is even more evidence that the ONLY thing backgrounds checks accomplish is hindering law abiding citizens in the exercise of a constitutionally protected right.

NoJoke
02-04-2011, 2:18 PM
+1. People don't understand what freedom is....they only think of it in terms of "loopholes". There's the gun show loophole, open carry loophole, ammunition loophole, etc. People seem to think that either 1) the law must specifically allow an action for it to be legal, or 2) they must obtain some type of government license to do something.

substitute the word "loophole" with "safety" and I think you'll come up with the answer.

It's sugarcoated differently then how you present your argument. :rolleyes:

Flopper
02-04-2011, 2:38 PM
I'll agree to disagree with you on your above statement about my line of thought being backwards.

He's not saying that you are backwards as in "you just fell off the turnip truck."

He's saying you have it backwards because you think no one should be allowed arms til the government gives them the green light.

On the contrary the Second Amendment makes it very clear that the opposite is true, that the intended default should be "Shall not be infringed."

Falconis
02-04-2011, 3:29 PM
I understand a lot of the arguments presented and agree with a lot of them. The thing I am stuck on is why would we make it easy for said dangerous felon who should not be walking among us to walk into a store and walk out with a firearm all willy, nilly (That's the main one for backgrounds). I understand some people live out in the boonies and finding an FFL is more than an inconvience. The suggestion of having a computer resource available to just check and check alone isn't a bad idea IMO. But that also invites other arguments, I know.

I do understand the criminals get their guns anyways. But like I said before, I see no reason to make it easy for them. Granted the opinion of a background check is a minor inconvience is an opinion and an opinion alone. I wonder how many felons is possesion who get caught actually bought the gun on their own down the road in a store though?

When I started this thread it was late at night and I wasn't fully thinking of this as a college thesis. So excuse all the vaguness. The branching argument, as legtimate as it is, of how far background checks can and have gone was beyond what I was thinking. I was thinking under ideal circumstances. Also as far as who belongs on a prohibited list and who doesnt is another, related, but another argument too. Like I said, I was thinking under ideal conditions. I know that some of you believe there are no ideal conditions.

I did think about redemption like someone brought up earlier. Although there may be some people worthy of redemption, for the most part, I can't bring myself to put a lot of the people that are prohibited back into redemption. Like a person who shot up a house when he was 19. Sorry, made a mistake as an adult and I personally feel he should have to count on the kindness of his fellow man to protect him if it comes down to firearms. It's an unfortunate reality in California that there are too many people on parole that still commit crimes once they get out. It's a practical part of our reality and something I feel has to be dealt with.

Fjold
02-04-2011, 3:37 PM
It is difficult for me to understand why you think it is acceptable to have to prove your identity or eligibility to exercise a constitutional right. If you could explain why one would need to undergo a background check to prove they are not a convicted libeler in order to buy a printer I could figure out where we are not seeing eye to eye.

Proving your identity to exercise a constitutional right is used other than in the case of guns. You have the constitutional right to free travel but try to get in or out of the country without a passport.

BoxesOfLiberty
02-04-2011, 3:48 PM
Proving your identity to exercise a constitutional right is used other than in the case of guns. You have the constitutional right to free travel but try to get in or out of the country without a passport.

Getting IN without one doesn't seem too difficult, but the question is does this make it okay?

Sgt Raven
02-04-2011, 4:30 PM
How will an ankle bracelet prevent anti-social behavior? Wouldn't a jail cell be better?

If an individual is so dangerous that he can't be trusted to have a gun, how can he be trusted to walk around in society where nothing but the honor system is preventing him from getting his hands on a gun, a knife, a baseball bat, an SUV, or some other WMD?

And if he isn't so dangerous that he should be in a jail cell, why are we infringing on his rights?


There is a 'middle ground' between a jail cell and free, it's court supervised parole. Once they've served their parole and proved they can be trusted then they should regain their rights. ;)

N6ATF
02-04-2011, 4:32 PM
Getting IN without one doesn't seem too difficult, but the question is does this make it okay?

HAHAH!

dantodd
02-04-2011, 5:32 PM
It is quite simple to leave the country without a passport. I gave traveled internationally quite a few times and haven't ever has to show my passport to leave.

gunsmith
02-04-2011, 5:54 PM
I am not saying a background check will predict a person's future behavior. Just merely stating that a person who is mentally unstable or a person with a felony background should not be able to purchase a firearm.
.

The fact is criminals do not go to gun shows, they steal guns or buy on the black market.
Background checks are just a tool of big brother lovers to stamp out freedom of assembly
( gun shows)

dantodd
02-04-2011, 5:58 PM
"street guns" are cheaper than legitimately transfered guns.

rugershooter
02-04-2011, 7:05 PM
So what you're sayng Ruger, is that everyone and anyone has a right to own and posses a weapon no matter what they do with it? I'll agree to disagree with you on your above statement about my line of thought being backwards.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying is I, as a free citizen, have the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2A and I should be able to exercise that right without having to prove to the government that I'm fit to own guns. Just as the government doesn't "allow" me to exercise my 1A rights by requiring that I prove myself fit to free speech, the government shouldn't be able to decide who is fit to exercise their right and who can't exercise their rights.



He's not saying that you are backwards as in "you just fell off the turnip truck."

He's saying you have it backwards because you think no one should be allowed arms til the government gives them the green light.

On the contrary the Second Amendment makes it very clear that the opposite is true, that the intended default should be "Shall not be infringed."



That's exactly what I'm saying. He's saying that the default is that I can't own a gun unless I'm deemed fit to be allowed to own a gun. I'm saying that the opposite is true; the default is I can own a gun without getting a government permission slip.

I don't know how people can think otherwise, the default is that anyone and everyone has the right to arms, that the government is specifically prohibited from infringing on that right...and deciding who is "allowed" to own guns is most certainly an infringement.