Would you use a range with background checks?

[bodger]

No way.


Plus I would never join a club that would have me as a member..

(Old joke from Groucho Marx^^^)

Legend has it that Groucho also approached the Los Angeles Country Club about becoming a member. When they told him "Sorry, no Jews", he said:
"My daughter is only half Jewish, can she join if she promises to only go in the pool up to her waist?"

[2shotjoe]

nope, anti's would love you to cross over to liberalism.

[homelessdude]

Sorry but I also would be a no. I have some issues with a few of your statments. You use the term convicted felon but in this state it's three pages of misdomenors also. What do " not upstanding citizens " look like? And lastly my favorite" Non obtrusive regulation" Isn't that what the government has been doing to us for years. No thanks I don't think I would fit in with your approved group. But your free to try it and see if it flies, It's your money.

[dustoff31]

I don't have a problem with this concept. In fact, I think there is definitely something to be said for touting the fact that I, and everyone that I associate with, at least in so far as this goes, is a demonstrated "good guy".

As far as the background check itself, just leave it up the potential members. That is, bring a completed PFEC along with your club application and dues and your are good to go. If they choose not to do that, there are plenty of other places to go.

[homelessdude]

Hi dustoff31, Just for the sake of argument would the policy be if you were not prohibited from owning a gun you could join or would there be a commity or person who looked at your record and made a decision. You can have a record and still not be prohibited. Do some things carry more weight than others. Just trying to find where the bar would be. Doesn't really matter, it's not for me.

[Kyle1886]

Background checks do not guarantee "someone is upstanding" or not a felon. It only "proves" that up the point of the check, nothing after. That rare trait, common sense, and maybe gut instinct may need to come into play.

We are not issued "cards" that stipulate that checks have been done and up to date.

Respectfully
Kyle

[erik_26]

Unless your range offered everything I could ever want and everything I never thought of, I can't see myself wanting a membership so bad that I would allow a background check.

People don't have to pass a background check to leave their home to go out into public.

People don't have to pass a background check to enter the driver seat of a vehicle.

So on and so on.....

I have access to a couple public ranges that are pleasant and affordable. I am 1.5 hours away from my favorite BLM spot.


If you had a membership required range that had an expensive annual cost you probably wouldn't need background checks. The price of membership would keep most prohibited people out. That would have to be one heck of range to demand high annual membership fees.

Besides, what is to stop someone with a clean record from snapping after they pass a background check?

[mshill]

There was a thread posted recently about felons arrested at a range (see: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...hp?p=16773106#) in possession of firearms. I don't think there's any objection to these guys being arrested, but it seems like there was objection to how they were arrested (someone called the cops because they had evil looking guns and 100 round drum magazine).

If you actually read the thread, this was Spenceville which is not a "range" so to speak. I'm betting most prohibited persons aren't going to go to a private range where they can run into a lot of LEOs.

By the way, background checks didn't prevent any of the recent high profile shootings, what makes you think they will keep "undesireables" out of your little club.

[trigger945]

Sign me up for it. I hope your range is not too far from me

[uhlan1]

Oh yes, by all means, let's start infringing on our own.

[seo]

I would pass easily, but the precept is you are guilty before being presumed innocent. That would make me pass and continue out to BLM land where the critters don't need backgound checks either.

Don't be so certain. With identity theft and just others having similar names people there are numerous cases of mistaken identity.

[ocabj]

Interesting responses.

I respect the opinions pro or con on this issue, although I find it harder to relate to people in our community as of late.

I agree we shouldn't be oppressed by the "safe handgun" roster, CA AW laws, and magazine capacity limits, and I want to own suppressors and full auto in this State.

But it seems like my pro-background check feelings are against the current, so to speak, of the pro-gun community.

As far as my idea of using background checks as a requirement for a private range facility, I thought that might be a nice way to enforce legal ownership of firearms.

I do understand how there are detractors who don't like background checks because they don't like the idea of the Government defining 'who' should be disqualified from owning a firearm.

It does perplex me that some people don't care if the guy next to them at the shooting range is a felon and is prohibited from owning a firearm. It is the "don't snitch" mentality. Is it a mentality of just keep to yourself and as long as the other guy doesn't bother you, you won't bother him?

Anyway, the concepts / ideas in my original post are simply stuff I've always thought about when it came to opening a range of my own. It's all hypothetical, anyway. I doubt I'd ever have the kind of money to fund and open the shooting sports facility I dream about all on my own.

[Merc1138]

Interesting responses.

I respect the opinions pro or con on this issue, although I find it harder to relate to people in our community as of late.

I agree we shouldn't be oppressed by the "safe handgun" roster, CA AW laws, and magazine capacity limits, and I want to own suppressors and full auto in this State.

But it seems like my pro-background check feelings are against the current, so to speak, of the pro-gun community.

As far as my idea of using background checks as a requirement for a private range facility, I thought that might be a nice way to enforce legal ownership of firearms.

I do understand how there are detractors who don't like background checks because they don't like the idea of the Government defining 'who' should be disqualified from owning a firearm.

It does perplex me that some people don't care if the guy next to them at the shooting range is a felon and is prohibited from owning a firearm. It is the "don't snitch" mentality. Is it a mentality of just keep to yourself and as long as the other guy doesn't bother you, you won't bother him?

Anyway, the concepts / ideas in my original post are simply stuff I've always thought about when it came to opening a range of my own. It's all hypothetical, anyway. I doubt I'd ever have the kind of money to fund and open the shooting sports facility I dream about all on my own.

It's not so much a "don't snitch mentality" as it is, if the person next to me is a felon and I'm unaware, and he isn't doing anything that would prompt me to be concerned about him at all, why would I care?

Take the felon with a gun part out of the equation. I've seen plenty of morons at ranges, and personally know a few(unfortunately) who aren't felons, that buy guns legally, and cannot behave like a mature adult at the range. Those are the people I concern myself with.

Now like the other thread mentioned, I'd be willing to bet that the guys involved weren't white collar criminals who got popped for tax evasion or whatever, and happened to be behaving like normal human beings at the range. Maybe it was profiling, but there's nothing wrong with that(except in the minds of the PC crowd).

[IVC]

But it seems like my pro-background check feelings are against the current, so to speak, of the pro-gun community.

Background checks are NOT the problem. Universal registration IS the problem.

The proponents of the "universal background checks" don't want to hear about it unless there is a registration scheme attached to it. Besides being dishonest about their true intent, it's hard to justify why make/model/serial number would be required for a background check when the same background check applies regardless of the make/model/serial number.

If all UBC really meant was "background check," you'd find much larger support for it in our community. The numbers that you see on mainstream media come from: (1) intentional obfuscation of the fact that the goal is to create a national registry, (2) people not having an issue with background checks, and (3) intentional misrepresentation of support for background checks as support for universal registration.

[deckhandmike]

I'd prefer a range that required annual safety check off. I'm so tired of getting muzzle swept. I don't care about your legal status. I just don't want to be shot accidentally.