Would you use a range with background checks?

[farmerjoe]

I wouldn't, but that does't mean other folks wouldn't if it would keep the douchebags away. Free market will dictate how long it would survive.

[Cokebottle]

Nope.

The problem I have with the people who claim "I'm not a criminal, I've got nothing to hide" is this is the same frog boiling mentality that got us a bunch of laws most of us oppose.

Criminal, mentally ill, prohibited person are all definitions owned and controlled by the government and subject to change by the stroke of some unelected bureaucrat's pen.

Bingo.
(hypothetical, not me, but this happened thousands of times)
I don't beat my wife, but the crazy ex accused me of it.
Rather than pay $50k for defense, my attorney recommended that I accept a plea bargain to misdemeanor. That 8 hours in the can would be accepted as time served, $500 fine, no firearms prohibition, no issue with voting rights, everyone walks away.

Then along comes Senator Lautenberg who passed legislation that retroactively changed ANY conviction for DV to a lifetime prohibition.

Many police officers who were in the exact situation described above lost their careers because they were no longer able to possess a firearm.

[homelessdude]

Ya I guess rich people need a place to shoot too.

[stix213]

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.

This ^^^

I just find the concept insulting and worry this would become the norm.

[Kyle1886]

Inattentive drivers (licensed or not) concern me much more than who is next to me at the range with a firearm, legal or illegal...

Joe Blow realtor talking to a client while driving is more of a concern than some "illegal" firearm owner hitting their target.

It wasn't that long ago no background checks, licenses, etc. were required to go plinking or squirreling.

Respectfully
Kyle

[-hanko]

Nope.

The problem I have with the people who claim "I'm not a criminal, I've got nothing to hide" is this is the same frog boiling mentality that got us a bunch of laws most of us oppose.

Criminal, mentally ill, prohibited person are all definitions owned and controlled by the government and subject to change by the stroke of some unelected bureaucrat's pen.

What's interesting is seeing the frog-on-the-stove mentality gaining here...Stockholm syndrome at it's best.

I wouldn't, but that does't mean other folks wouldn't if it would keep the douchebags away. Free market will dictate how long it would survive.

The "douche bags" at the range may or may not be felons.

[six seven tango]

WOW...now even the "pro gunners" are trying to take an inch mile.

No way would I willingly step into a place that made me prove my innocence to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Don't you see how well B/G checks work now, with common name issues? Delays, denials. Innocent people having to prove their innocence to an agency, predisposed to considering everyone guilty, just because someone else with the name John Smith is a felon. Or because they were falsely accused, arrested, and charged, but never convicted, and the courts screwed up the paper work...30 years ago. Yeah...I want to subject myself to that crap just to go shooting.

[-hanko]

WOW...now even the "pro gunners" are trying to take an inch mile.

No way would I willingly step into a place that made me prove my innocence to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Don't you see how well B/G checks work now, with common name issues? Delays, denials. Innocent people having to prove their innocence to an agency, predisposed to considering everyone guilty, just because someone else with the name John Smith is a felon. Or because they were falsely accused, arrested, and charged, but never convicted, and the courts screwed up the paper work...30 years ago. Yeah...I want to subject myself to that crap just to go shooting.

So, you're saying you're not in favor of reasonable, common-sense gun laws?

[dwalker]

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 have a very hard time relating to most Calgunners, who have lived with oppression so long they have little idea what actual freedom is, and are "OK" with lots of things they should not be OK with.

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.

Sure you do, but in the same breath your "OK" with other not owning them. Our 2nd Amendment NOT ONCE mentions prohibited persons. I have a real problem with the idea "felons" cannot buy firearms, or for that matter that ANYONE can be prohibited from owning firearms. I can almost- and I mean barely- agree that specific mentally challenged people should not have easy access to guns, but then again those are the same people I believe should not be walking around freely.

Did you know that David Marshall "Carbine" Williams, who was a convicted felon- he shot and killed a sheriffs deputy while defending his illegal still site- helped develop the M1 Carbine and many other weapons for Winchester? In todays society he would never even have been allowed to step foot in the gate. A very serious flaw we have in our so called "Justice" system is that a man who commits a crime in passion, or as a result of bad choices, is never actually redeemed in the eyes of our legal system. Which is NOT what the Founding Fathers had in mind. We do a very serious dis-service to their memories every single day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Marshall_Williams

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

I would say your feelings are anti-American, not anti-gun. Right to Privacy is a big deal. Its should NEVER be traded for others to "feel" secure. EVER. The British did that, and it started a war..

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.

Thats not your job. If a prohibited person chooses to own firearms they can deal with that when and if they get caught. Violating thier right to privacy is not the right thing to do. It is, again, UN-American.

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.

The Right to Privacy exists because the reality is that its no ones business what I do or how I choose to do it. Especially the .gov. The Founding Fathers knew this, because they had lived under a tyrannical government who claimed all rights to invade privacy at will, using the exact same justifications you are.

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?

Perhaps you detect a theme here, but NO, I DO NOT care if the guy sitting ext to me on the range is a convicted felon who is merrily plinking away on a Saturday, because as long as he doesnt do anything to invade my privacy or infringe on MY rights I have NO RIGHT to infringe on his. And he damned sure has the same right to privacy I do. What if some do-gooder like you decided to check MY background check, and the sloppy *** .gov sent back a warrant for someone else with a similar name and I ended up having an encounter with the police, going to jail, and having to fight a fight I would win but cost me dearly just because your(abstract, not you personally) dumb insecure self righteous arse are trying to "do the right thing". The right thing is to MYOB. because what I describe WILL happen at some point- it happens every day- and its WRONG.

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.

[six seven tango]

So, you're saying you're not in favor of reasonable, common-sense gun laws?

No, I'm saying I'm not in favor of un-reasonable gun laws rooted in unicorns and rainbows that are being passed off as "common sense".

[HighWildFree]

Nope.

[CSACANNONEER]

If one chooses to be employed by a company which requires a background check, it is his/her choice. If one chooses to belong to a private club which requires a background check, the same choice applies. I bet many here who would refuse to join a private range that requires background checks have no problem with their employers doing annual background checks and random drug tests too. Personally, I feel that a valid CCW from any state should be more than enough to prove that one is not a prohibited person and a complete background check might be a bit too invasive unless, the private club also wants to verify one's credit rating.

[glock_this]

Yes from the standpoint it weeds out some riff-raff and keeps the numbers down so shooting is more enjoyable.

No from the standpoint I don't want any more paperwork with my details being collected and going to the gobernment than totally necessary.

ps - I am all for a paid membership ONLY range (no walk ins) - amenities, setup, layout, closeness to my location dependant of course.

[-hanko]

No, I'm saying I'm not in favor of un-reasonable gun laws rooted in unicorns and rainbows that are being passed off as "common sense".

I realize that.

My post was sarcastic, hence the smillies.

[six seven tango]

I realize that.

My post was sarcastic, hence the smillies.

I know it was. I was just returning the favor and being a . It's all good.