# My .02 on background checks,



## budgetprepp-n (Apr 7, 2013)

I think we would all agree that keeping guns out of the hands of pepole that are mentally unstable 
is a good idea. So In theory the background checks should be a good idea. But I think now we all know 
better than that.The liberals and Politicians are like my bother in law. Every time I see him he wants 
to borrow $20. Now I don't mind giving someone $20 it's not that big of a deal,, But if I do tomorrow 
he will be pestering the chit out of me and not for $20 but rather for $30. So I have't to say no even 
if I think he needs it and would like to. 

The pepole responsible for the background checks are like that. At first they just wanted the background 
checks to be for gun shops. Now they want it to be mandatory for a background check even if I sell a gun
to one of my friends. Say what? - We should have had huge protest and said no to start with.< hindsight 
In general it seams to be a bad idea anytime the government gets involved in the private sector.

Lets look at where this may (And probably will) go. Then after they get that far they will make it a really
serious felony and mandatory jail time if you sell a gun without doing the background check. That will get
everyone to participate through imitation. 

Now soon they will know were most of the guns are and what kind of gun you have. Why would they need 
to know that? < this is no brainier 

Now for the icing on the cake. GUN TRANSFER TAX !
And you can bet it will be a heavy one. 

When this happens whose fault will it be? Your's and mine for permitting something that sounded like a 
good idea to happen. It's a shame we need to be skeptical about everything every time the Government or
liberals have an idea that sounds like it might just be a good idea. 

Second thought,, I can think of a few reasons why anyone would need to know who has a gun.
And none of them have a bright outlook for me. Or you.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

We already have a background checks in place, that is enough and we don't need more. Besides how many crimes has the so called checks have prevented? None... Also what is this "universal background checks". Does this stupid law mean we can't buy a gun in the next solar system without being checked? If I'm not mistaken we are not allowed to buy a gun in states we don't live in, which is by the way against 2A rights.


----------



## Billy Roper (Oct 5, 2015)

The problem is that if the government defines what 'mentally ill' is, and uses that to limit a person's Constitutional rights, the government can change the definition of mentally ill. Maybe people who use hate speech are mentally ill Maybe homophobia is a mental illness. Maybe religious faith is a mental illness. Are we willing to start down that slippery slope?


----------



## budgetprepp-n (Apr 7, 2013)

Billy Roper said:


> The problem is that if the government defines what 'mentally ill' is, and uses that to limit a person's Constitutional rights, the government can change the definition of mentally ill. Maybe people who use hate speech are mentally ill Maybe homophobia is a mental illness. Maybe religious faith is a mental illness. Are we willing to start down that slippery slope?


That's the problem we are already starting to slide and that slope gets steeper and faster the farther you slide down.


----------



## redhawk (May 7, 2014)

I believe that a lot of the problem with reporting mental health issues is HIPPA...they are so worried about "offending" someone that it becomes very difficult to report mental health issues...being PC is going to be the downfall of society...JM2C


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

In my state, you cannot get a license to carry if you have a Protection From Abuse Order (domestic) against you. The problem is: my buddy had one filed on him by his wife while they were divorcing. He asked her why she did it as he had never touched her, and she told him her lawyer had her do it as a normal action during divorce proceedings.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

So where was the background check on Slick Willy, HildeBEAST, and Barry Sotoro?

At least two would be in prison and the IMPOTUS have been DEPORTED!


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Mad Trapper said:


> So where was the background check on Slick Willy, HildeBEAST, and Barry Sotoro?
> 
> At least two would be in prison and the IMPOTUS have been DEPORTED!


Obviously it is because when your a demonic rat it is different. Besides why would mental illness disqualify you from controlling nuclear weapons?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Billy Roper said:


> The problem is that if the government defines what 'mentally ill' is, and uses that to limit a person's Constitutional rights, the government can change the definition of mentally ill. Maybe people who use hate speech are mentally ill Maybe homophobia is a mental illness. Maybe religious faith is a mental illness. Are we willing to start down that slippery slope?


The definition will become circular and self fulfilling, eventually.
"If you have an irrational fear of persecution, or feel a need to own a firearm for self defense in a mostly crime-free society, you're paranoid and mentally ill."
Just watch. The very idea of wanting a firearm will become justification for denying one.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

First of all the government likes to make itself indispensable. It finds inventive and creative ways to insinuate itself into every day life while portraying itself as useful. When more often than not, it's in the way and being a PITA. It's almost as if they are afraid if they don't make themselves indispensable they'll marginalized. Which in a mostly crime free society maybe true.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

6811 said:


> We already have a background checks in place, that is enough and we don't need more. Besides how many crimes has the so called checks have prevented? None... Also what is this "universal background checks". Does this stupid law mean we can't buy a gun in the next solar system without being checked? If I'm not mistaken we are not allowed to buy a gun in states we don't live in, which is by the way against 2A rights.


You are mistaken, by federal law, you can buy any long gun in any state as ling as it complies with the laws in your state of residence. Some states/communist strongholds have laws that say you can buy a gun in only states that border them but by and large you can purchase a long gun in any state (and walk out with it the same day). I cannot buy a so called assault weapon in any state because it does not comply with the PRNY laws but, any other long gun is good to go.

Handguns can be bought in any state but have to go to a dealer in your state. There was a federal court ruling in Texas i think that declared the handgun portion of the 68 GCA unconstitutional due to the Brady bill's requirement of the NICS checks. I am not sure where that ruling is as far as follow up challenges go.

The universal background check laws like the ones forced down the throats of the people in Oregon an NY mean you cannot transfer any gun without a dealer being involved. It is a money maker for the FFLs so they don't normally oppose those laws (follow the money). They always have some kind of exemption for family (in NY it is only child/parent but in OR it is almost any recognized family relationship).

The only reason for background checks on the secondary market is so the government will know who has guns, since a 4472 has to be filled out at a gun dealer the authorities can trace any gun sold back to the last buyer with a simple subpoena of the gun dealers records.

it is just another level of unconstitutional infringements.


----------



## Billy Roper (Oct 5, 2015)

And if you fear and distrust your government, why then you must be mentally ill. Probably all combat veterans are mentally ill. PTSD and all. Can't have combat trained anti-government folks having firearms!


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

It's simply a ploy to register the guns and track gun owners so they can take them at a later date. 

The whole mental health issue is just a distraction for the real end game. Just another baby step for complete control.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

dsdmmat said:


> You are mistaken, by federal law, you can buy any long gun in any state as ling as it complies with the laws in your state of residence. Some states/communist strongholds have laws that say you can buy a gun in only states that border them but by and large you can purchase a long gun in any state (and walk out with it the same day). I cannot buy a so called assault weapon in any state because it does not comply with the PRNY laws but, any other long gun is good to go.
> 
> Handguns can be bought in any state but have to go to a dealer in your state. There was a federal court ruling in Texas i think that declared the handgun portion of the 68 GCA unconstitutional due to the Brady bill's requirement of the NICS checks. I am not sure where that ruling is as far as follow up challenges go.
> 
> ...


I am pretty familiar how the FFL stuff works. I guess what I am trying to say is you can't go to another state and buy a firearm and leave the store with it. You have to do all of FFL mumbo jumbo and wait for the firearm to be sent to your home state. Sounds very much like infringement on my 2A rights. In PA I can buy a gun and walkout with it the same day, why can't I do that in Texas, Florida or alaska?


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

6811 said:


> I am pretty familiar how the FFL stuff works. I guess what I am trying to say is you can't go to another state and buy a firearm and leave the store with it. You have to do all of FFL mumbo jumbo and wait for the firearm to be sent to your home state. Sounds very much like infringement on my 2A rights. In PA I can buy a gun and walkout with it the same day, why can't I do that in Texas, Florida or alaska?


Unless Your state has a law saying you cannot buy long guns from other states you can. I can buy a rifle in TX, AL, FL or PA and walk out with it, I cannot buy a handgun or a lower receiver (other) and walk out with it. The handgun thing is federal and As I said I believe it has been challenged but is being appealed.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...rstate-handgun-transfer-ban-unconstitutional/


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

dsdmmat said:


> Unless Your state has a law saying you cannot buy long guns from other states you can. I can buy a rifle in TX, AL, FL or PA and walk out with it, I cannot buy a handgun or a lower receiver (other) and walk out with it. The handgun thing is federal and As I said I believe it has been challenged but is being appealed.
> 
> BREAKING: Federal Judge Strikes Down Interstate Handgun Transfer Ban - The Truth About Guns


I'm in PA, I think we can get rifles from our neighboring states. It's the handguns that has all the BS rules of being shipped to an FFL. From what I understand NICS is national instant checks so why is it not national. Meaning if I am from PA, Florida should be able to run NICS on me and if approved, be able to take home the gun I purchased. I hope that issue could be fixed.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

The handgun issue will need to go to the Supreme Court, the fifth circuit has already decided it was unconstitutional, which should have been the end of it but the justice department is appealing. I cannot wait for it to go away either, it will make the Sullivan act useless.


----------



## shootbrownelk (Jul 9, 2014)

6811 said:


> We already have a background checks in place, that is enough and we don't need more. Besides how many crimes has the so called checks have prevented? None... Also what is this "universal background checks". Does this stupid law mean we can't buy a gun in the next solar system without being checked? If I'm not mistaken we are not allowed to buy a gun in states we don't live in, which is by the way against 2A rights.


 You're right 6811, But what's really troubling is the fact that the thugs they do catch and charge usually can walk away. The Lawyers & Prosecutors work out some sort of plea deal on the firearms charge. Until the Federal Government's DOJ and the Judges start handing down the recommended sentences for "Straw Purchases" and Lying on the forms then the background checks will never work as intended. More laws won't solve anything when criminals ignore them. JMO


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

shootbrownelk said:


> You're right 6811, But what's really troubling is the fact that the thugs they do catch and charge usually can walk away. The Lawyers & Prosecutors work out some sort of plea deal on the firearms charge. Until the Federal Government's DOJ and the Judges start handing down the recommended sentences for "Straw Purchases" and Lying on the forms then the background checks will never work as intended. More laws won't solve anything when criminals ignore them. JMO


this is why I have problems with gun control. it seems to me that the only purpose for it is to prevent me or other law abiding citizens from obtaining a firearm. However, when someone commits a violent crime or a violent offender tries to obtain firearms, their cases get plead out in court. the penalties are not handed out like they are supposed to.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Background checks = gun control

The entire point of gun control laws are to restrict the law abiding citizens access to guns. Criminals by default ignore laws so just who is being targeted by gun control laws? Not the criminal......


----------



## budgetprepp-n (Apr 7, 2013)

Ok I just called my FFL gun dealer to see how it works if you are from out of state.
In west Virginia if you are from out of state you can walk in and buy a long gun but not a 
pistol in order to buy the pistol it must be sent to your state to a FFL dealer.
The FFL dealer in your state will run the background from your home state.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

One big problem is HIPPA. If I take a handgun from someone who threatened to kill themselves or someone else with it and they have a long history of mental illness the courts are very reluctant to actually designate someone mentally ill for the purposes of owning firearms. The medical professionals NEVER tell us when someone is a danger despite their legal obligation to do so for fear of being sued. I have never run a criminal history that says: "Adjudicated mentally ill, cannot own or possess a firearm!!!". That is what we truly need. That same language needs to pop up during the Insta-check/background. There should also be a straw purchase admonition before every gun purchase that requires a signature. This is already the law, it's just not being enforced correctly. The felons are generally flagged very quickly because there is no HIPPA to protect criminal douchebags.

As for the rest of us, give us whatever we damned well ask for and can legally own.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

budgetprepp-n said:


> Ok I just called my FFL gun dealer to see how it works if you are from out of state.
> In west Virginia if you are from out of state you can walk in and buy a long gun but not a
> pistol in order to buy the pistol it must be sent to your state to a FFL dealer.
> The FFL dealer in your state will run the background from your home state.


How does that make any sense? The background check for one is the exact same for the other. Lunacy, if you ask me.
I know when I was in a Gander Mtn. in Texarkana, the gun bar guy had to inform me that if I was from the Arkansas side, I would not be able to purchase a firearm there. He wasn't specific about type. I don't know if this is a company policy or a state law issue. I've honestly never thought to look it up. I've only ever lived in Texas, and never thought to visit a gun shop while anywhere else.
Perhaps it's worth a look.


----------



## budgetprepp-n (Apr 7, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> How does that make any sense? The background check for one is the exact same for the other. Lunacy, if you ask me.
> I know when I was in a Gander Mtn. in Texarkana, the gun bar guy had to inform me that if I was from the Arkansas side, I would not be able to purchase a firearm there. He wasn't specific about type. I don't know if this is a company policy or a state law issue. I've honestly never thought to look it up. I've only ever lived in Texas, and never thought to visit a gun shop while anywhere else.
> Perhaps it's worth a look.


Lunacy? Have you forgot who were dealing with here? But I agree with you.


----------



## Montana Rancher (Mar 4, 2013)

budgetprepp-n said:


> I think we would all agree that keeping guns out of the hands of pepole that are mentally unstable
> is a good idea. .


Actually I don't agree with your initial premise, The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, to me that means NOT BE INFRINGED.

So who is the person that decides who or who isn't mentally stable???

Once you open the can of worms, then you have to live with the concequences.

If elected I will by executive order state that all tea party members are not mentally stable....

Gun control perfected, don't fall into the trap!


----------



## budgetprepp-n (Apr 7, 2013)

Montana Rancher said:


> Actually I don't agree with your initial premise, The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, to me that means NOT BE INFRINGED.
> 
> So who is the person that decides who or who isn't mentally stable???
> 
> ...


Ok Just one more example of what they can do to what started out as a good idea-- I guess your right. I stand corrected


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

budgetprepp-n said:


> Ok Just one more example of what they can do to what started out as a good idea-- I guess your right. I stand corrected


With rights comes responsibility. These responsibilities are a heavy burden on people who don't want to be held accountable for anything in their life. When people allow government to make laws that govern their rights they are allowing the government to take over their responsibilities and make rights into privileges.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

dsdmmat said:


> With rights comes responsibility. These responsibilities are a heavy burden on people who don't want to be held accountable for anything in their life. When people allow government to make laws that govern their rights they are allowing the government to take over their responsibilities and make rights into privileges.


Well said...... and we have watched it become the choice of many.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

Montana Rancher said:


> Actually I don't agree with your initial premise, The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, to me that means NOT BE INFRINGED.
> 
> So who is the person that decides who or who isn't mentally stable???
> 
> ...


It's called due process. People who are a danger to themselves or others by virtue of mental illness that is supported by a history of suicidal or homicidal actions, thoughts or tendencies should be temporarily prohibited from owning or possessing any weapons. This diagnosis should be made by Physicians and affirmed by other doctors. They should also be granted qualified immunity from civil liability just like Judges and Attorneys. The individual should always have the ability to appeal the decision and have it revisited periodically for re evaluation.


----------



## chocks141 (Nov 21, 2015)

as an FFL dealer, here is my problem with the background checks.
A young man comes in my store to buy a rifle for his mom, he is denied. I told him, if it is for your mom, you can pay for it, but she should pick it up and do the BGC. The mom is also denied. I called the FBI and they said there was a convicted felon registered at her address was why. End of story, nothing else done.
Couple of months later, a girl is waiting for her BGC to come back. Cops come in and arrest her for an unpaid "dog at large" ticket.

The laws already on the books are not being enforced.


----------

