Gun Purchase Without Background Check | What's Your Stance?

How many gun purchases by people who aren't allowed were stopped by a background check?

 

Last I remember it was like 900,000 sales had been prevented(not denied) with over 77,000 that had lied on background check. Last I heard none had been charged for the crime. Do to prison overcrowding few gun laws are enforced at suitable levels. Or were you just wanting a answer from the OP?

 

I think the States should be responsible for doing the background checks, not the federal government.

 

I support that as a rule of government (that states choose internal policy and the Federal government be reserved for interactions between states), but I still think it's a coercive act of government opposed to liberty, and in that sense I'm opposed to mandatory background checks at any level.

For any government.

 

Background checks among two rednecks trading guns out of the back of their pick up truck?

You can't use a background check as an excuse to limit the private sale of a legal product between two private citizens.

It is one thing if you are a gun dealer, but Joe Bob Redneck has every right to sell his shotguns on Ebay as everything else out there.

 

sales across state lines have to go thru an FFL. some states have limits on who can buy and where their residents can buy too. if i buy one out of state, it has to be from a neighboring state..the last time i looked anyways.

- - - Updated - - -

that would be ineffective. we have a very mobile population. Michigan might not know about the man i shot in Reno just to watch him die.

 

how many of those were in error?

 

Well I actually checked and I should not have put (not denied) behind the the number. This from the Christian Science Monitor.
http://m.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decod...ime-for-universal-background-checks-on-buyers
More than 100 million background checks have been run in the 14 years the NICS has been in place. As of the close of 2012, sales have been denied 987,578 times, the FBI reports.

The top reason for a federal denial – 577,814 instances – is that the prospective gun buyer had been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year (or a misdemeanor punishable by more than two years). In 143,852 cases the basis for denial pertained to domestic violence – either a restraining order or a misdemeanor conviction. Mental health, believed to be pertinent in the Virginia Tech massacre, the Colorado movie theater shooting, and the slaughter of innocents in Newtown, Conn., was the reason for an NICS denial in 10,180 cases.

 

If that is all the rejections that happened it looks like the difference between the numbers is approx. 206,000. I would assume that was because of errors but not positive.

 

An example of one of those that I know of would be a man in his 30s that was told his misdemeanor as a teenager was wiped off the books and wasn't so he had to go to court to lift the ban.

 

If people think that every gun transfer needs a background check, then they are really hurting people that pass away and leave their guns to their kids. For instance, if someone had a collection of 100 WWII weapons, and some people do, that would require around $2,500 to transfer all of the weapons through an FFL. It serves no purpose and reduces no crime.

 

It will be a large change if it indeed goes through. It seem like the universal checks will eventually. Looks like most of the other things on the controllers wish list will not be possible till after the mid-terms if republicans lose.

 

My main issue would be that. As long as no federal registration giving to ones child should still be do able. I will just "give" my weapons to my son before the law takes effect. However without a amendment for that it might not pass so we will have to see.

 

you don't need an FFL to do a background check...you need the 800 number they call.

 

I do not support this, and for the following reason. This does nothing to help law abiding citizens, this only helps those who don't want background checks to get a gun faster. A law abiding citizen, which is what most gun owners are and what we're all told they are, would be able to get a weapon regardless of a background check, and if not, it's likely they shouldn't have one. I realize that some may be penalized for mistakes they made in their past but I'd rather that happen than make it even easier to get a gun.

I'm not anti-gun, but I am pro gun control. I don't want to take anyone's weapons, but I don't think it should be super easy to get one either. I myself am looking to buy a pistol, and eventually a CCL, and I'll go through the proper channels to do so, just like I hope everyone else lawfully carrying a weapon has.

All I see happening when you remove the background check requirement is making it easier for mostly criminals to get guns.

 

there is no way that all sales of guns from person to person can ever be recorded and checked. Its a fantasy to think it could be done.

If you buy a gun from a dealer, the background check is already in place.

the focus needs to be on stopping the criminals, not stopping legal gun sales.

 

Why would a background check stop a legal gun sale?

 

BS, what they are talking about is putting private sales under the same requirements as an Interstate transfer, which will require an FFL to perform the transfer and FFLs do not work for free.

 

That's fine, I was just curious.

 

just do it the way dealers do it, call an 800 number, punch in the buyers SSN and they say yes or have a recording of the soup nazi say "no gun for him!".

the paperwork is just for dealer records.

 

i've been an FFL holder. it's no secret society or something Joe the 7/11 clerk couldn't do. it's just paperwork anyone could do. if they want to make everyone that sells a gun hold on to the name of who they sold it to, which is littel more than a signed statement that the buyer isn't a criminal, that's not such a bad thing. it's not like you have to report who left with what (or anything) or have to let BATF into your house to go thru a bound book.

 

Sounds interesting. But things change, and folks fall in and out of favor with the law. Could make for a bureaucratic head banger.

 

I voted 'no', but I guess it depends on what you mean by 'background check'.

I don't think any of it would do any good except maybe in the case of violent felons. Most people are considered perfectly sane until after they blow away 1st graders in a classroom or patrons in a movie theater.

 

yet the examples you used would have been red flaged by NY State's new law.

 

It was a old idea it appears it is to late for anything except the universal background checks. Hopefully what mikezila says is true. If so it will not be as bad as I had thought.