Background checks (poll)


Beau

I was never here.
Should there be background checks?
Please vote and share.
Poll - EasyPolls.net

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
 

I live in Idaho, and I have a CPL, so when I buy a gun from a dealer no back ground check is required. Just do the paper work, pay for it, and walk out the door with my new gun. I voted for #1 because back ground checks do little to nothing to stop someone from doing something bad if they really want to with a gun.
 
Occasionally the NICS check will flag one so at an FFL only. Between two people who are not FFLs can not be enforced.
 
Occasionally the NICS check will flag one so at an FFL only. Between two people who are not FFLs can not be enforced.

Most NICS hits are false. But suppose you are correct that every once in a while it produces an actual hit, you have to assume that;

1) Said person knew they were prohibited and was trying to obtain a firearm illegally and on purpose.

2) They planned to use the firearm for a nefarious purpose.

3) They were unable to obtain a firearm by any other means either before or after they were denied.

4) They were arrested for trying to purchase said firearm.

Unless these things are true then the NICS system accomplished nothing.
 
We already have back ground checks. To the anti gun crowd background checks will never be enough. They won't be happy until all guns are out of private hands. To my knowledge all of the recent mass shooting have been carried out by people that would have passed a back ground check. Some of the guns used were stolen. Are we going to require stolen guns go through a back ground check. Who's going to enforce that? If we aren't going to enforce our current gun laws why are we looking to add more laws we won't enforce?
 
Most NICS hits are false. But suppose you are correct that every once in a while it produces an actual hit, you have to assume that;

1) Said person knew they were prohibited and was trying to obtain a firearm illegally and on purpose.

2) They planned to use the firearm for a nefarious purpose.

3) They were unable to obtain a firearm by any other means either before or after they were denied.

4) They were arrested for trying to purchase said firearm.

Unless these things are true then the NICS system accomplished nothing.
So when we got a denial recently and they requested the buyer's address they didn't follow through? Denials are rare but when one comes up, there normally is a reason. "Conditional No" is not a denial. It is only a delay. A CN can still be sold by the FFL after 3 days if there isn't a "Denied". That is at the discretion of the FFL.
 
I voted," No firearm sales should require a background check."

They are worthless as said, and we got along quite nicely for almost 200 years without them. Lets rid ourselves of them.
 
IMO background checks and all other BS anti-gun legislation do nothing to deter criminals and never will. To me anti-gun legislation is about controlling society and eventually beating them into submission by slowly removing their ability to defend against tyranny. I personally believe our govt has grown waaaaay too big and powerful and is headed toward that tyranny. Govt is full of slick willies, scheisters, con men, thieves, liars, despots and ultra wealthy elitists all hell bent on total rule over the rest of us. That I think is the reason for the increasing battle against gun ownership. At some point we are once again going to have to fertilize that tree of liberty.
 
If anyone knows the answer to this since I've just posted what most probably see as ridiculous, just how far back do CCP background checks actually go? Here in Alabama it's a whole 'nuther Country and everything is about the money when it comes to Sheriffs' Departments. It's been 35 years since I was arrested for a couple of misdemeanors but in this podunk County that would be enough for my Sheriff to deny my CCP. Anybody know how far back they go?
 
I live in Idaho, and I have a CPL, so when I buy a gun from a dealer no back ground check is required. Just do the paper work, pay for it, and walk out the door with my new gun. I voted for #1 because back ground checks do little to nothing to stop someone from doing something bad if they really want to with a gun.

Same process in NC, I show my CHP, fill out the 4473, pay the man and walk out the door with my new gun.

In NC, purchasing a handgun requires either a PPP (Pistol Purchase Permit) obtained from the Sheriff, or a CHP to buy a handgun from any dealer, or private individual. Does it always happen with every time with private individuals? Of course not, and there is no way to enforce it. At least it is easy and does not place the burden of somehow running a NICS check on the buyer. Can a private individual even run a NICS check?

Then of course there is the criminal market, criminals selling stolen guns to criminals, and just like illegal drug sales, the government is totally incapable of stopping either.
 
If anyone knows the answer to this since I've just posted what most probably see as ridiculous, just how far back do CCP background checks actually go? Here in Alabama it's a whole 'nuther Country and everything is about the money when it comes to Sheriffs' Departments. It's been 35 years since I was arrested for a couple of misdemeanors but in this podunk County that would be enough for my Sheriff to deny my CCP. Anybody know how far back they go?

Depends on what the misdemeanor was in NC. Some will prevent you from getting a permit, apparently a lifetime ban, others only if the misdemeanor occurred in the last 3 years.
 
MADD - Statistics

Every day in America, another 28 people die as a result of drunk driving crashes.

Drunk driving costs the United States $199 billion a year.

About one-third of all drivers arrested or convicted of drunk driving are repeat offenders.


So where is the cry for background checks on vehicle sales? Why is there not a Federal dealer's license required for vehicle dealers? Why are out of state vehicle purchases allowed with no extra hoops to jump through? Why are those convicted of drunk driving not prohibited from ever purchasing or being in possession of a vehicle? And that's not including those killed in vehicle crashes caused by actions such as running stoplights/signs and speeding.
 
MADD - Statistics

Every day in America, another 28 people die as a result of drunk driving crashes.

Drunk driving costs the United States $199 billion a year.

About one-third of all drivers arrested or convicted of drunk driving are repeat offenders.


So where is the cry for background checks on vehicle sales? Why is there not a Federal dealer's license required for vehicle dealers? Why are out of state vehicle purchases allowed with no extra hoops to jump through? Why are those convicted of drunk driving not prohibited from ever purchasing or being in possession of a vehicle? And that's not including those killed in vehicle crashes caused by actions such as running stoplights/signs and speeding.


Because it is privilege, not a right? Sorry, couldn't help myself :sad:

Bottom line, the auto industry has far too many generous lobbyists in Washington lining the pockets of the corrupt bastards that roam the halls of congress.
 
Howdy,

The reason the background checks rarely have a "hit" is because people the cannot legally buy a gun NEVER go to a licensed dealer to buy a gun.

All you have to do is go to a local gun show and look at all the people that are buying from "private collections" and notice how the price of the gun is more expensive for a used gun than a brand new one.

Also at the last gun show that I attended in Little Rock there were several non-white males that were having white females purchase handguns for them.

None of the non-white males could legally buy a gun so they had another person buy it for them.

Since these non-white males could not legally buy or own a gun, what are the chances that the guns they were buying would be used in a crime?

Just curious.

Eventhough I do NOT want my Rights or Your Rights infringed upon, some where, some how, the guns need to be kept out of the hands of people who can NOT legally own one.

Paul
 
Howdy,

The reason the background checks rarely have a "hit" is because people the cannot legally buy a gun NEVER go to a licensed dealer to buy a gun.

All you have to do is go to a local gun show and look at all the people that are buying from "private collections" and notice how the price of the gun is more expensive for a used gun than a brand new one.

Also at the last gun show that I attended in Little Rock there were several non-white males that were having white females purchase handguns for them.

None of the non-white males could legally buy a gun so they had another person buy it for them.

Since these non-white males could not legally buy or own a gun, what are the chances that the guns they were buying would be used in a crime?

Just curious.

Eventhough I do NOT want my Rights or Your Rights infringed upon, some where, some how, the guns need to be kept out of the hands of people who can NOT legally own one.

Paul

Well it seems pretty simple then, Pretty Simple Paul - Just stop non-white males from buying guns.

That is what you are implying, right?
pajenry_by_laoperz.gif
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,542
Messages
611,258
Members
74,964
Latest member
sigsag1
Back
Top